Page No.1 of 3 IN MAC-1300-2022 2025:CGHC:40269 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1300 of 2022 [Arising out of award dated 29.06.2022, passed in Claim Case No.502/2019 (Ramprasad Gond v. Bhushan Sahu and others) by the 7th Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG)] Divisional Manager Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, 3rd Floor, Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Pick-Up 407 Bearing No. Cg 040648) ... Appellant Versus 1 - Ramprasad Gond S/o Shri Budhram Gond Aged About 45 Years R/o Gram-Awari, Thana-Kurud, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Shri Bhushan Sahu S/o Shri Makhan Lal Sahu R/o Gram Fusera, Thana-Kurud, District-Dhamtari (Driver Of Pick Up 407 Vehicle No. Cg 04 Lp 0648) 3 - Makhanlal Sahu S/o Dukhuram Sahu R/o. House No. 205, Ward No. 13, Gram- Bhainsbod, The. Kurud, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. S.R. Amin, Advocate For Respondents : None though served ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 11.08.2025 1. In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the “MV Act”), the appellant-Insurance Company is calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned award dated 29.06.2022, passed in Claim Case No.502/2019 SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 3 IN MAC-1300-2022 (Ramprasad Gond v. Bhushan Sahu and others) by the 7th Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) (for short the “MACT”), whereby the claim application filed by the respondent No.1/claimant has been allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.1,34,642/- has been awarded to him alongwith interest @ 9% PA, which is payable by the appellant-Insurance Company herein. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would make sole submission that in the present case the offending vehicle i.e. Pickup bearing No.CG-04-LP-0648 was a goods carrying vehicle and according to the insurance policy the risk of owner, driver and conductor of the said vehicle was only covered. However, the claimant/respondent No.01 was sitting as a Coolie (labourer) in the said vehicle at the time accident, whose risk was not covered under the insurance policy, therefore, the learned MACT is absolutely unjustified while fastening liability to pay compensation on the appellant-Insurance Company. As such, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 3. None appeared for the respondents though served. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered his rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. In the case at hand, the learned MACT after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that though the offending vehicle was a goods carrying vehicle and the Page No.3 of 3 IN MAC-1300-2022 claimant was sitting as a a Coolie (labourer) in the said vehicle at the time of accident and, further in the said accident, due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by the respondent No.02 (driver), the claimant has sustained injuries. However, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company could not contradict the aforesaid finding recorded by the learned MACT. As such, the aforesaid finding recorded by the learned MACT, in fastening liability upon the insurance company to pay compensation of Rs.1,34,642/- to the claimant, is correct findings of fact based on evidence and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. I do not consider it a fit case warranting interference in the impugned award, passed by the learned MACT. 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