Page No.1 of 4 IN MAC-227-2017 2025:CGHC:52751 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 227 of 2017 [Arising out of award dt. 14.10.2016, passed in Claim Case No.109/2012 (Bankumar and other v. Guddu and others) by the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG)] The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Division Number - 1 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Jail Road Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Insurer Of Truck Number C. G. 10 - A- 7700 , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Bankumar S/o Gadu Deep, Aged About 40 Years R/o Arjun Nagar, Ghadi Chowk Raipur House of Purna Baghel Thana Civil Line Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh 2 - Basanti W/o Bankumar Deep, Aged About 39 Years R/o Arjun Nagar Ghdi Chowk Raipur House Of Purna Baghel Thana Civil Line Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Guddu S/o Derharam Yadav, R/o And Post Simga, Thana Simga, District Balauda Bazar Raipur Chhattisgarh Driver Of Auto Number C. G. 04 T 6701 , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Haji Mohmmad, S/o Vali Mohmmad Chaudhari, R/o K. K. Road, Afroj Bag Thana Maudhapara, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh Owner Of Auto Number C.G. 04 T 6701 , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chola Mandlam, M. S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. First Mazil Hinduja Complex 22 Parasnagar, Chowk Devendra Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh Insurer Of Autho Number C. G. 04 T 6701, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Panchram S/o Chainuram Through Pratipal Singh Saluja S/o Surjeet Singh Saluja Quater No. A/6, Adarshnagar Durg Fulgaon SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 4 IN MAC-227-2017 Chowk Thana City Kotwali, District Durg Chhattisgarh Driver Of Truck No. C. G. 10 -A- 7700 , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 7 - Pratipal Singh Saluja, S/o Surjeet Singh Saluja, Quarter No. A/ 6 Adarshnagar Durg Fulgaon Chowk Thana City Kotwali, District Durg Chhattisgarh Owner Of Truck No. C. G. 10 A - 7700, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.7 : Ms. Gurpreet Kaur, Advocate on behalf of Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 29.10.2025 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 dt. 14.10.2016, passed in Claim Case No.109/2012 (Bankumar and other v. Guddu and others) by the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG), whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has fastened 50% liability to pay compensation upon them as the vehicle i.e. Truck bearing No.CG-10-A-7700 was insured with the appellant- Insurance Company. 2. Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in fastening 50% liability upon the appellant- Insurance Company, as Page No.3 of 4 IN MAC-227-2017 there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Truck bearing No.CG-10-A-7700 and the said truck was rightly being parked at the time of accident in question. Hence, the findings of the learned Claims Tribunal while fastening 50% liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation is liable to be set aside and absolute liability to pay compensation is liable to be fastened upon the owner, driver and insurance company of the offending vehicle (i.e. Auto Rickshaw) bearing No. CG-04-T-6701. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents No.02 & 07 would support the impugned award and prays for dismissal of this appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. The only plea that has been taken on behalf of the appellant- Insurance Company is that since the question of negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle i.e. Truck bearing No.CG-10-A-7700 has not been proved, therefore, the appellant- Insurance Company is not liable to pay 50% compensation. However, eye-witness, namely, Jogendra Sona (Witness No.02), who was sitting in the vehicle (i.e. Auto Rickshaw) bearing No. CG-04-T-6701 at the time of accident, has clearly stated that at the time of accident, Truck bearing No.CG- 10-A-7700 was standing in the middle of the road and parking lights Page No.4 of 4 IN MAC-227-2017 of it were also not switched on and, therefore, the accident in question occurred. Said Jogendra Sona (Witness No.02) was extensively cross-examined, but nothing could be extracted from him to hold contrary and, even, he reiterated that the said Truck was standing in the middle of the road at the time of accident. As such, negligence on the part of the driver of the Truck bearing No.CG-10- A-7700 is clearly established, as at the time of accident the same was parked/standing in the middle of the road and parking lights were also not switched on and, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened 50% liability to pay compensation on the part of the appellant- Insurance Company because the said vehicle Truck bearing No.CG-10-A-7700 was insured with them. Thus, I do not find any merit in this appeal and same deserves to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. No cost. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if