(MAC No.1093/2023) 2025:CGHC:61563 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1093 of 2023 {Arising out of award dated 31-3-2023 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No.229/2022} Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, Through its Legal Manager, Office No.403, 4th Floor, DB, City Corporate Park, Flat No.1, Block No.9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer) ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Kumudini Yadav, W/o Late Rooplal Yadav, aged about 25 years, 2. Smt. Savita Bai Yadav, W/o Shri Jeevan Lal Yadav, aged 48 years, 3. Hemlata Yadav, D/o Shri Jeevan Lal Yadav, aged 18 years, All are R/o Village Chaprid, P.S. Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) (Claimants) 4. Rajuram Chandravanshi, aged 32 years, S/o Shri Chandrakumar Chandravanshi, R/o Shriram Nagar, New Changorabhatha, Near Aman Kirana Stores, P.S. D.D. Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Motorcycle bearing No.CG-04/MJ-2837) (Driver) 5. Jeevanlal Yadav, aged 50 years, S/o Late Manbodhi Yadav, R/o Village Chaprid, P.S. Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) (Motorcycle bearing No.CG-04/MJ-2837) (Owner) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 3 & 5 : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.12.19 14:10:05 +0530 (MAC No.1093/2023) Judgment on Board 17/12/2025 1. The appellant Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 questioning the impugned award dated 31-3-2023 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No.229/2022 on the ground that the vehicle was falsely implanted in the accident and no such accident occurred, which is opposed by the claimants/ respondents No.1 to 3 herein and owner/respondent No.5 herein. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, though self-serving plea has been taken by the Insurance Company that the vehicle has been falsely implanted in the accident, but no evidence has been led by the Insurance Company, whereas the Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that FIR and seizure memo reveal that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this appeal, it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed, without there being any order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE Soma