1 2025:CGHC:50684 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 315 of 2022 Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office Akash Ganga Complex, Supela- Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh), Through Authorized Signatory, National Insurance Company Limited Legal Cell TP Hub National Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Gendvati Alias Gendbati, W/o. Chandrika Prasad Deshmukh, Aged About 52 Years, R/o. Village Anda, Ward No. 01 P.S. Anda, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Motilal Alias Arvind Kumar Gadhpayle, S/o. Sondas Gadhpayle, Aged About 42 Years, R/o. House No. 557 Gandhi Nagar, Ward No. 3, Supela, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 – M/s. Amar Infrastructure Limited Durg, Proprietor Surendra Rathi, S/o. Lalchand Ji Rathi, Address Mahesh Nagar Near Jainam Palace Pulgaon Naka GE Road Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.10.10 17:32:38 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. B.N.Nande with Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocates For Respondent No.1. : Mr. Ankush Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.K.Patel, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 10.10.2025 1. The appellant/insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question the legality, validity & correctness of the impugned award dated 30.10.2021, passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, by which the claim application of the claimant has been allowed and an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.13,56,876/- has been awarded to the claimant on account of permanent disability to the extent of 100%. 2. Mr. B.N.Nande, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company, would submit that the claimant was not third party, as the paver finisher machine by which the accident occurred was owned by the owner of the vehicle, therefore, claimant/ injured cannot be treated as third party. Therefore, the 3 impugned award is liable to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 3. Mr. Ankush Gupta, learned counsel for the claimant/ respondent No.1 would support the impugned award and submit that the appeal of the insurance company deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely. 5. Admittedly, it is the case of the claimant that she was working in the company run by M/s. Amar Infrastructure Limited and driver while driving the paver finisher machine rashly & negligently caused the accident, by which the claimant suffered permanent disability i.e. amputation of left leg above the knee. The only issue raised by the insurance company is that the injured/claimant was not third party, which the learned Claims Tribunal has negated holding that since the claimant was working in M/s. Amar Infrastructure Limited, owner of the vehicle, she cannot be placed out side the third party. Since the claimant/injured was only the worker and while driving the paver finisher machine by the driver rashly & negligently, the accident has been caused, resulting into amputation of left leg 4 of the claimant above the knee, she was definitely the third party, which the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly held. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Ashok Judge