1 2025:CGHC:60933 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2309 of 2024  Future General India Insurance Company Limited, Through- Its Branch Manager, Present And Correct Address-Second Floor Malay Heights Mahadevghat Road, Sundar Nagar Opposite Rbi, Raipur. --------(Insurer Of Vehicle No. Cg-07-Cf-8502) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Smt. Dhaneshwari W/o Late Doman, Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No.3, Kaleva Nagdal, Post-Pacheda, P.S.-Ghumka, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ------(Claimant) 2. Shradha Verma D/o Late Doman Lal Verma, Aged About 8 Years Minor And Represented Through Respondent No. 1 I.E. Mother, R/o Ward No.3, Kaleva Nagdal, Post-Pacheda, P.S.-Ghumka, District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ------(Claimant) 3. Chaman Verma S/o Late Doman Lal Verma, Aged About 6 Years Minor And Represented Through Respondent No. 1 I.E. Mother, R/o Ward No.3, Kaleva Nagdal, Post-Pacheda, P.S.-Ghumka, District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ------(Claimant) 4. Lemun Bai W/o Kalyan, Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No.3, Kaleva Nagdal, Post-Pacheda, P.S.-Ghumka, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ------(Claimant) 5. Kalyan Verma S/o Ramratan Verma, Aged About 60 Years R/o Ward No.3, Kaleva Nagdal, Post-Pacheda, P.S.-Ghumka, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Present Address- Village-Rasamada, In The House Of Rajesh Nishad, District-Durg (C.G.) ------(Claimant) 6. Ramratan Verma S/o Latel Verma, Aged About 75 Years R/o Ward No.3, Kaleva Nagdal, Post-Pacheda, P.S.-Ghumka, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ------(Claimant) Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.12.15 16:00:28 +0530 2 7. Kamta Verma D/o Vikram Verma, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village-Gendra, P.S.-Khairagarh, District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ----- (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G.-07-Cf-8502) 8. Rohan Kumar Sahu S/o Ajay Kumar Sahu, Aged About 22 Years R/o Gandhi Chowk Thakur Dev Mandir Ward No.51, Borsi Basti, Durg Chowki Padnabhpur, P.S.-City Kotwali, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) -----(Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G.-07-Cf-8502) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate along with Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 6 : Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents No. 7 and 8 : None, though served Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 15-12-2025 1) The appellant–Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award passed by learned Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G.) in Claim No. 97/2023 dated 9.10.2024, by which liability to pay a total compensation of Rs. 28,27,122/- with interest @ 6.5% p.a. has been fastened upon the Insurance Company. 2) Facts of the present case are that on 3.12.2022 at about 5:00 pm, deceased Doman Lal Verma was going from Khairagarh to Village Kaleva as pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-07-CF-8502 which was being driven by respondent No. 7 herein, namely, Kamta Verma. As per claim application, Kamta 3 Verma applied emergency brakes to save an animal and he lost control of motorcycle. In the accident, Doman Lal Verma fell from the vehicle ; sustained grievous injuries and died. Claimants, who are the widow, minor children, parents and grand-father of the deceased moved claim application and pleaded that the deceased was aged 30 years and he was a trained Driver earning Rs. 16,000/- per month. Insurance Company filed reply and took a specific plea that FIR was lodged after 40 days of the accident and deceased was in inebriated state, which caused the accident. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter award impugned was passed. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that deceased was under influence of alcohol and this fact is evident from the post mortem report as well as evidence of Dr. Lucky Netam. He further submits that FIR was lodged with delay of 40 days on 2.1.2023 wherein for the first time, involvement of vehicle in the accident was disclosed, thus it is a case of implantation of vehicle. He contends that learned Tribunal has not considered these aspects while fastening the liability with the Insurance Company. He further contends that learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the higher side without there being any evidence led by the claimants to prove the income of deceased. He prays to set aside the award impugned. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants 4 would oppose. He submits that the deceased was a trained Driver and his driving license has been produced before the learned Tribunal, therefore learned Tribunal treated the deceased as a skilled labourer. He further submits that merg intimation was lodged on 4.12.2022 and after merg inquiry, police registered FIR on 2.1.2023, thus there was no delay in registration of FIR. He contends that deceased was a pillion rider and Dr. Lucky Netam in cross-examination has admitted that deceased was not clinically examined and his remarks with regard to intoxication were based on information provided by the near and dear of the deceased. He further contends that appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6) Perusal of the record would show that a specific plea was taken by the Insurance Company that deceased was in intoxicated state but it would not affect the case of claimants as the deceased was a pillion rider. The offending vehicle (motorcycle) was being driven by respondent No. 7, namely, Kamta Verma ; he applied emergency brakes and lost control of motorcycle and deceased fell down from the motorcycle and died. 7) Dr. Lucky Netam who examined the deceased, in cross- examination has admitted that the deceased was not clinically examined and remarks regarding consumption of large amount of 5 wine was entered in the report on the basis of information received from the near and dear of the deceased, therefore contention made by Mr. Sharma regarding intoxication cannot be accepted. 8) With regard to delay in registration of FIR, merg intimation was registered on 4.12.2022 and after merg inquiry, police registered FIR on 2.1.2023, thus there was no delay on the part of claimants in registration of FIR. Further, learned Tribunal has treated the deceased to be a skilled labourer as he was a trained driver and assessed the notional income of the deceased to be Rs. 11,910/- per month. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the well- reasoned finding recorded by the learned Tribunal regarding income of the deceased. 9) In view of the discussion made herein-above, in my opinion, learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation which does not warrant any interference. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE A j i n k y a