1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1080 of 2018 1 - Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vanijya Bhawan, First Floor, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.3), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Rama Dewangan W/o Late Shri Lokesh Kumar Dewangan Aged About 51 Years R/o Se 39, Cseb Colony, Korba East, Tehsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Claimant No.1), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Akhilesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Late Shri Lokesh Kumar Dewangan Aged About 27 Years R/o Se 39, Cseb Colony, Korba East, Tehsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Claimant No.2), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Anjali Dewangan D/o Late Shri Lokesh Kumar Dewangan Aged About 24 Years R/o Se 39, Cseb Colony, Korba East, Tehsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Claimant No.3), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sagar Dewangan S/o Late Shri Lokesh Kumar Dewangan Aged About 21 Years R/o Se 39, Cseb Colony, Korba East, Tehsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Claimant No.4), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 5 - Ramkishore S/o Shri Dhaniram Aged About 48 Years R/o Kashi Nagar, Budhwari, O.P. Nagar, Tehsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.1), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Shiv Jaiswal S/o Shri S.L.Jaiswal R/o Village Bhaisma, Thana Urga, Tehsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.2), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tessy Abraham, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate. For Respondents No. 5 to 6 : Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/10/2025 1. The present is an Insurance Company’s appeal assailing the award dated 18.4.2018 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 68/2016, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 98,98,104/- with interest @ 7% per annum in favour of claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the instant appeal arises from a claim case preferred by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 against the appellant and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 concerning the death of Shri Lokesh Kumar Dewangan in an alleged accident dated April 3 28, 2016. The accident occurred when the deceased, who was riding his motorcycle, was reportedly hit from behind by the insured vehicle, resulting in his death. The learned Tribunal, through the impugned award dated April 18, 2018, allowed the claimant’s application, holding that the death was due to the alleged accident; the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 98,98,104/- the appellant insurance company is liable as it failed to prove any breach of the insurance policy, and thus, the appellant is required to pay Rs. 98,98,104/- to the claimants. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is fraught with grave errors and manifest irregularities, warranting its outright setting aside. Primarily, the learned Tribunal has egregiously erred in directing the appellant to make payment of compensation as computed, having utterly failed to appreciate and duly consider the factual matrix brought on record concerning the claim raised by the claimant. The Tribunal’s approach in calculating the compensation is palpably flawed, resulting in an award that is both illegal and perverse, and contrary to the applicable law as well as the peculiar facts of the case. Significantly, the Tribunal neglected to deliberate on crucial and material issues, including the fundamental question of whether the insured vehicle was indeed involved in causing the accident. The First Information 4 Report (FIR) was lodged only a day after the incident, and notably, against an unknown vehicle, which underscores the fact that due diligence was exercised before lodging the FIR, yet the vehicle responsible could not be ascertained at that time. Furthermore, the Tribunal disregarded the unequivocal testimony of the eyewitness who categorically stated in court that the accident was caused by a newly sold car, while the insured vehicle in question was an older model from the year 2007, and the accident occurred in 2016. The eyewitness’s testimony was neither challenged nor discredited during cross-examination, yet the Tribunal inexplicably cast doubts on this evidence, questioning the absence of a court summons for the witness, which is wholly unjustified. Additionally, the Tribunal overlooked the fact that the FIR was registered against an unknown vehicle, thereby failing to establish any direct involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident. It appears that the insured vehicle was impermissibly implicated through collusion between its owner and the claimants solely to extract compensation from the insurance company. The Tribunal further misdirected itself by relying on misconceived reasons, particularly in casting aspersions on the appellant for not producing the eyewitness’s statement given to the police, ignoring that the statement given under oath in court is conclusive and unequivocal. Moreover, the Tribunal erred in 5 examining the criminal prosecution record without recognizing that findings in a criminal case are not binding upon it; the Tribunal is duty-bound to arrive at its own independent conclusion based on the evidence presented. In light of these substantial errors and irregularities, the impugned award is bad in law, unjust, and deserves to be set aside in its entirety. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the record, it is apparent that the learned Tribunal thoroughly examined the evidence and found the appellant insurance company liable to pay compensation to the claimants for the death of Shri Lokesh Kumar Dewangan in the alleged motor accident. The appellant has failed to convincingly disprove the involvement of the insured vehicle or establish any breach of the insurance policy that would absolve it of liability. The Tribunal’s findings on liability and compensation are supported by the evidence on record, including the timely lodging of the FIR and the unchallenged testimony of witnesses. Consequently, no compelling reason exists to interfere with the well-reasoned award of the Tribunal, and the appeal is hereby dismissed. 6 7. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat