1 2025:CGHC:61923 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1240 of 2017 1 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Pawan Kumar Soni S/o Shri Triloki Soni, Aged About 16 Years Minor, Represnted Through Father Triloki Soni Son Of Nanhu Soni, Aged About 46 Years, Caste Sonar, Occupation Business, Resident Of Nagar Jelpara, Surajpur, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh............ Claimant, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sukhdev @ Kanhai Ram S/o Bhagirathi @ Amar Sai, Aged About 26 Years Caste Rajwar, Occupation Driver, R/o Village Girvarganj, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 3 - Keshav Kumar S/o Patwari Ram Aged About 26 Years Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Kunjnagar, Police Station Jaynagar, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. , District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Dhananjay Singh S/o Ramnarayan Singh, Aged About 27 Years RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Caste Bhuiyar, R/o Village And Police Station Vishrampur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Dadan Kushwaha S/o Jatan Kushwaha, Aged About 27 Years Caste Koir, Kumda Mines Colony, Vishrampur, R/o Village And Police Station Vishrampur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. Ayush Lall, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. For Respondents No. 2 to 5 : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 19/12/2025 1. The present is Insurance Company’s appeal assailing the award dated 8.5.2017 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District-Surajpur (C.G.), whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,74,605/- with interest @ 9% per annum in favour of claimant/respondent No. 1 herein. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the claimant/respondent instituted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,61,000/- under various heads from respondent Nos. 2 to 4 as well as the 3 appellant. It was averred by the claimant that on 02.05.2012, the injured, namely Pawan Kumar Soni, while riding a bicycle, was hit by a Jeep bearing registration No. C.G.16 ZA-0624, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, as a result whereof the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his pelvic bone and the knee of his right leg, ultimately leading to permanent disablement. Upon service of notice, the appellant– insurance company filed its written statement denying the allegations made in the claim petition and contended that on the date of the alleged accident the offending vehicle was being driven by one Kanhai Ram Rajwade, who was not holding a valid driving licence, and that in order to avoid liability, the owner of the vehicle had falsely introduced respondent No. 2, Sukhdev, before the police authorities as the driver of the vehicle. On this basis, the appellant prayed for its exoneration from liability. However, the learned Claims Tribunal, after considering the material on record and discarding the aforesaid objections raised by the insurance company, fastened the liability upon the appellant and awarded compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,74,605/-. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is perverse, erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of law as well as the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended that in order to establish its statutory defence, the insurance company had specifically pleaded and proved that on the date of 4 the accident the vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 2, Sukhdev s/o Bhagirath, and not by the person alleged by the claimant, and in support thereof the FIR was duly filed on record, which remained unrebutted and undisputed by the claimant, thereby clearly indicating that Kanhairam Rajwade was the actual driver at the relevant time. It is further submitted that the appellant examined Anoop Mehta, Surveyor of the insurance company, who categorically deposed that Kanhairam and Sukhdev are two distinct and different persons, but the said evidence has been ignored without any justifiable reason. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has erroneously fastened the liability upon the insurance company merely on the ground that the appellant did not lodge any report alleging unfair investigation, which is wholly unsustainable in law. It is also urged that the claimant has nowhere specifically pleaded or stated that the vehicle was being driven either by respondent No. 1 or by Kanhairam, and despite the same, the Tribunal has fixed liability on the appellant on the basis of surmises and conjectures. It is further argued that the accident took place on 02.05.2012 and the alleged driver was arrested after a lapse of about two months, which itself ought to have led the Tribunal to draw an adverse inference that Kanhairam was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the claim petition ought to have been decided strictly on the basis of evidence adduced before the Tribunal and not merely on the basis of records of the 5 criminal case, and therefore the impugned award deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for claimant/respondent No. 1 submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,74,605/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He 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. 2 to 5. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on a careful perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no illegality, perversity or material irregularity can be found in the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and has justifiably rejected the defence raised by the appellant–insurance company regarding the alleged breach of policy conditions, as the same could not be proved by cogent and reliable evidence. Mere filing of the FIR or examination of the surveyor is not sufficient to conclusively establish that the offending vehicle was being driven by an unauthorized or unlicensed person at the relevant time, particularly when the insurance company failed to discharge the 6 burden cast upon it under law. The findings recorded by the Tribunal on negligence as well as on fastening of liability are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not call for any interference in appeal. 8. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellant–insurance company being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat