Page No.1 of 3 IN MAC-747-2022 2025:CGHC:57551 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 747 of 2022 [Arising out of award dt. 07.04.2022, passed in Claim Case No.605 of 2019 (Ku. Geetanjali Sahu v. Tehar Singh Sahu and others) by the 2nd Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (CG)] Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, 4th Floor Maruti Heights, Beside Sky Auto Maruti, Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Pin 492010 (C.G.) ... Appellant Versus 1 - Ku. Geetanjali Sahu S/o Shri Tehar Singh Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Morid, Post Dundera, P.S. Utai, Tahsil Patan, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Tehar Singh Sahu S/o Late Hariram Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Morid, Post Dundera, P.S. Utai, Tahsil Patan, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Daneshwar Prasad Sahu S/o Shri Tehar Singh Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Morid, Post Dundera, P.S. Utai, Tahsil Patan, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. AD Kuldeep, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 26.11.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant- SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 3 IN MAC-747-2022 Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dt. 07.04.2022, passed in Claim Case No.605 of 2019 (Ku. Geetanjali Sahu v. Tehar Singh Sahu and others) by the 2nd Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (CG), whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claim application of the respondent/claimant and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.9,53,881/- alongwith interest @ 9% PA from the date of claim and said amount is held to be payable by the appellant-Insurance Company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would make sole submission that the offending vehicle was wrongly implanted in the accident in question, as the claimant, owner and driver of the offending vehicle all belongs to the same family and, therefore, the appellant- Insurance Company is wrongly held liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Thus, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order by opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and prays for dismissal of this appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. In the case at hand, a careful perusal of the record would show Page No.3 of 3 IN MAC-747-2022 the learned Claims Tribunal after full-fledge trial has specifically recorded a finding that the driver of the offending vehicle plied the same in rash and negligent manner and, due to which, the deceased suffered injuries and died and, even, against the driver of the offending vehicle criminal case under the provision of Section 304-A of IPC has also been registered, which finding, in the considered opinion of this Court is correct finding of fact based on evidence and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. As such, I do not consider it a fit case warranting interference in the impugned award, passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this appeal. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if