1 2025:CGHC:51232 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 874 of 2018 1 - Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. E-8, Rico Industrial Area, Satpura, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan., District : Jaipur, Rajasthan ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Jayantri Bai Markam W/o Late Shri Siyaram Markam, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Achota, Tehsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Sangita Kunjam, W/o Late Shri Siyaram Markam, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Karridih, Tehsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3 - Manish Kumar Markam, W/o Late Shri Siyaram Markam, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Achota, Tehsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Bhumita Markam, W/o Late Shri Siyaram Markam, Aged About 16 Years Minor And Hence Represented By Mother Smt. Jayantri Markam, R/o Village Achota, Tehsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 5 - Ku. Vinita Markam, W/o Late Shri Siyaram Markam, Aged About 13 RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Years Minor And Hence Represented By Mother Smt. Jayantri Markam, R/o Village Achota, Tehsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 6 - Ku. Jaylalita Markam, W/o Late Shri Siyaram Markam, Aged About 9 Years Minor And Hence Represented By Mother Smt. Jayantri Markam, R/o Village Achota, Tehsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 7 - Thakurram Yadav, W/o Hirauram Yadav, Aged About 25 Years R/o Kasrudih, Thana Panduka, Tehsil And District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 8 - Deepak Kumar Dhruv, W/o Gitaram Dhruv, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Murmura, Thana Panduka, Tehsil And District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 6 : Ms. Gunja Taram, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. For Respondents No. 7 to 8 : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 14/10/2025 1. The present is an Insurance Company’s appeal assailing the award dated 11.1.2018 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) in 3 Claim Case No. 136/2016, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,79,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6 herein. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the instant appeal arises from the claim case preferred by respondents No. 1 to 6 and respondents No. 7 and 8, following the death of the deceased, Late Sho Siyaram Markam, due to an accident on 21.02.2016. The accident occurred when respondent No. 7 parked the tractor bearing registration number CG 04 DM 9642 without any parking lights in the middle of the road, causing the driver of a motorcycle to collide with the tractor. As a result, the deceased, who was a pillion rider on the motorcycle, sustained serious injuries that led to his death. The offending tractor was insured by the appellant insurance company. The learned Tribunal, in its award dated 11.01.2018, allowed the claimants’ application in Claim Case No. 136/2016, holding that the accident caused the death of Late Sho Siyaram Markam, the appellant failed to prove any breach of the insurance policy terms, and that the appellant is liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,79,000/- to the claimants. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the learned Tribunal has committed gross errors and serious irregularities in passing the impugned award by erroneously directing the appellant to pay compensation without properly 4 appreciating the facts and evidence on record. He further submits that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the driver of the offending tractor was not holding a valid and effective driving license appropriate for the vehicle class, and that the vehicle was being used in breach of the insurance policy terms, including the unauthorized towing of another tractor and trolley not insured with the appellant. He further submits that the Tribunal neglected to frame an issue regarding contributory negligence despite relevant evidence. He further submits that the impugned award is bad in law, perverse, and contrary to the applicable legal principles and facts, warranting its setting aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6 that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,79,000/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. She further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 5. None for respondents No. 7 & 8 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly held the appellant liable for compensation without any breach of the insurance policy terms being proved. The accident clearly resulted from the negligent parking of the tractor, insured by the appellant, leading to the death of the deceased, and the appellant failed to establish any valid defense such as invalid driving license or policy breach. Furthermore, the contention regarding contributory negligence is unsupported by evidence and was rightly not considered by the Tribunal. The award of Rs. 4,79,000/- with interest in favor of the claimants is just and lawful, and no grounds exist to overturn or reduce the compensation granted. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat