1 2025:CGHC:50895 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1430 of 2025  Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through - Branch Manager, Shivmohan Bhawan, Pandri, City And P.S. Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, C.G. (Insurer) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Ku. Pari Dheemar D/o Duleshwar Dheemar Aged About 6 Years Through - Guardian Father Duleshwar Dheemar S/o Narsing Dheemar, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Nehru Nagar, Ward No. 9, Village And P.S. Utai, District Durg, C.G. (Claimant) 2. Santosh Giri Goswami S/o Late Chatur Giri Goswami Aged About 36 Years R/o Adarsh Nagar, Ward No. 11, Village And P.S. Utai, District Durg, C.G. (Owner And Driver) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Ashutosh Rathore, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13.10 .2025 1. The Insurance company/appellant has challenged the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. 589/2024 dated 05.04.2025, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 1,54,361/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of injury sustained by the claimant. 2. The facts of the present case are that on 27.10.2022, the claimant aged about 5 years was in front of her house along with her Aunt, at the same time, the driver of the motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 07 CH 0951 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the injured, consequently, she SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.10.15 17:24:07 +0530 2 sustained injuries over right leg and other parts of the body. She was referred to higher center in Durg. She was admitted at Pandey Nursing Home, Durg, where the treating doctor detected a fracture of the femur bone and the right ear's malleus. She remained hospitalized for considerable period and rod was inserted in her right leg. The claimants claimed medical expenses Rs. 3,00,000/- and they produced medical bills before the learned Tribunal and total sum of Rs. 15,10,000/- as a compensation. FIR was lodged on 08.12.2022 vide Ex. P/3 wherein entire story was narrated by father of the claimant. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance company/appellant has placed reliance on the medical prescription of Astha Hospital dated 27.10.2022, wherein there is a note that the injured herself sustained injury as she fell down from motorcycle at home. He would further submit that NAW2/1 Dr. R. Tiwari has admitted this fact and stated that this fact was narrated by father of the injured. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Praveen Dhurandher, Advocate would oppose. He would submit that Dr. R. Tiwari was not an eye-witness and the father of the injured never narrated that story as stated in evidence by the Doctor. He would further contend that FIR was lodged against driver of the vehicle making allegation of accident and charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has considered this aspect, and thereafter, passed an award. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Admittedly, date of accident was 27.10.2022 and FIR was lodged by the father of the claimant on 08.12.2022 against the driver of the offending motorbike. The driver of the offending vehicle never made any complaint against the registration of FIR and charge-sheet was also filed against him 3 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC. 7. Ex. P/10 would show that the claimant visited Astha Hospital on 27.10.2022 and in medical prescription, it is observed that she sustained injuries as she fell down from motorcycle while playing. Dr. R. Tiwari has been examined as NAW2/1 and this witness has proved the contents of prescription Ex. P/10. This witness is not an eye-witness and no investigation was carried out by the Insurance company to prove the contents of Ex. P/10. AW/1 Duleshwar Dhimar has proved contents of claim application. In cross- examination, this witness has stated that the fact of accident was never narrated to the Doctor on 27.10.2022 and he denied suggestion given by the Advocate of non-applicant No. 2/Insurance company. 8. Satyendra Kumar Shriwas, A.G. II of Regional Transport Authority, Durg was examined, who stated that name of the driver of the offending vehicle does not reflect in the software. This witness in cross-examination admitted the fact that driving licence can be issued on the basis of temporary residents certificate. This witness further admitted that all manual entries have not been updated in the software. 9. The learned Tribunal fastened liability with the driver/owner of the offending vehicle and granted liberty to the Insurance company to recover it from him. 10. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant