1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 884 of 2018 1 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office 3rd Floor Gurukripa Tower Behind Icici Bank, Vyapar Vihar Road, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Chitrekha Bai W/o Late Shivkumar Shrivas Aged About 55 Years R/o Chatidih Melapara P.S. Sarkanda Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rakesh Kumar Shrivas S/o Late Shivkumar Shrivas Aged About 10 Years Through His Mother Smt. Chitrekha Bai, R/o Chatidih Melapara P.S. Sarkanda Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Rajkumar S/o Fattulal Vastrakar, R/o Village Nayapara Ghutku P.S. Koni, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Motilal Yadav S/o Jituram Yadav R/o Village Chorbhatti Khurd, Post Bharni, P.S. Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 For Appellant/Insurance Company : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Yogendra Pandey, Advocate For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Mr. S.S. Painkra, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judgment on Board 16/10/2025 1. This is the appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Award/Order Dated 30.10.2017 passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bilaspur (C.G) in Claim Case No. 37/2015. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents No. 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of Shivkumar, who allegedly died in a motor accident on 27.03.2015 while going to Ratanpur for Devidarshan along with his friends. It was alleged that near village Ranigaon, the vehicle driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased from behind, causing fatal injuries. The claimants sought ₹15,50,000/- as compensation, stating that the deceased was a labourer earning ₹200–300 per day. The driver denied the allegations, stating that he was falsely implicated. The appellant Insurance Company also denied liability, contending that the driver had no valid licence and that the insured vehicle bearing registration No. CG 10 W 3 4525 was not involved in the accident, as the FIR (lodged after two months) and Marg Report initially mentioned another vehicle, No. CG 12 A 2632, as being involved. The Investigating Officer, Mr. Sanjay Shrivastava, admitted during cross-examination that CG 12 A 2632 was the vehicle involved and that no document in the case diary supported the final report filed against CG 10 W 4525. Despite these facts, the Claims Tribunal held CG 10 W 4525 to be involved in the accident solely on the basis of the final report and fastened liability on the Insurance Company, leading to the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is a case in which the original vehicle involved in the accident has not been made a party. Instead, while substituting another vehicle, the award amount has been granted in favor of the claimants. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the aforesaid averments made by the appellant- insurance company have not been duly proved. Therefore, it cannot be said that the vehicle has been changed or that another vehicle has been introduced to wrongfully obtain compensation. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From a careful perusal of the record and the evidence adduced by the insurance company, it is noted that the 4 insurance company examined Mr. Sanjay Shrivastava as its witness. However, Mr. Shrivastava was unable to substantiate the allegations made by the insurance company. He failed to prove that any vehicle other than the one originally involved was connected to the accident. Moreover, he admitted that the vehicle involved in the accident has been identified and recorded in the final report of the criminal case. 7. In view of this, no case is made out on behalf of the insurance company to claim that the vehicle involved in the accident was changed or substituted. Further, it is pertinent to note that the claimants’ appeal has already been adjudicated upon, wherein the insurance company was held liable. 8. Considering the foregoing, the contention of the insurance company fails, and the appeal is liable to be, and is hereby dismissed. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha