1 2025:CGHC:56357 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 515 of 2022 The New India Assurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Shanti Kunj, Civil Line Balauda Bazar District, Balauda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Bimla Bai Sahu Wd/o Late Shri Lekhram Sahu, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Bitkuli P.O. Nayapara, P.S. Suhela, Tahsil Simga, District Balauda Bazar Batapara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Neera Sahu, Wd/o Late Jhumuklal Sahu, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Bitkuli P.O. Nayapara, P.S. Suhela, Tahsil Simga, District Balauda Bazar Batapara Chhattisgarh. 3 - Neha Sahu, D/o Late Jhumukala Sahu Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Their Mother Smt. Neera Sahu, Wd./o Late Djahumuklal Sahu,r/o Village Bitkuli P.O. Nayapara, P.S. Suhela, Tahsil Simga, District Balauda Bazar Batapara Chhattisgarh. HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.11.20 11:11:04 +0530 2 4 - Payal Sahu, S/o Late Jhumukala Sahu, Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Their Mother Smt. Neera Sahu, Wd./o Late Djahumuklal Sahu, R/o Village Bitkuli P.O. Nayapara, P.S. Suhela, Tahsil Simga, District Balauda Bazar Batapara Chhattisgarh. 5 - Thakur Jeet Sahu, S/o Late Jhumukalal Sahu, Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Their Mother Smt. Neera Sahu, Wd./o Late Djahumuklal Sahu,r/o Village Bitkuli P.O. Nayapara, P.S. Suhela, Tahsil Simga, District Balauda Bazar Batapara Chhattisgarh. 6 - Chetan Sahu, S/o Late Shri Kelhram Sahu, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Bitkuli, P.O. Nayapara, P.S. Suhela, Tahsil Simga, District Balada Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 7 - Hemprabha Sahu, D/o Late Shri Lekhram, Sahu, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Bitkuli, P.O. Nayapara, P.S. Suhela, Tahsil Simga, District Balada Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 8 - Yashwant Sahu, S/o Shri Anant Sahu, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Bitkuli, P.O. Nayapara, P.S. Suhela, Tahasil Simga, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 9 - Toran Sahu, S/o Manharan Sahu, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bitkuli, P.O. Nayapara, P.S. Suhela, Tahsil Simga, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapra Chhattisgarh. (Owner) ... Respondent(s) 3 For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondents : None though served SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 19.11.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant (Insurance Company) against the impugned award dated 24/12/2021 passed by learned 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar (C.G.) whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,29,500/- has been awarded to the claimants and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant (Insurance Company). 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that deceased was travelling in light goods carriage vehicle and he would not come within the category of third party, therefore, the appellant (Insurance Company) ought to be exonerated by the Claims Tribunal. 3. None appeared for the respondents, though served. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered his submission made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 4 5. A careful perusal of the impugned award would show that learned Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding, referring to the insurance policy (Ex. NA/4), that it was a package policy in which a premium of Rs. 14,590/- was paid for covering the risk of third party. Further, during cross-examination, the witness appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company namely Dillu Jagannath (A.W.-4), has clearly admitted that deceased would come under the category of third party. Therefore, the plea taken by the appellant (Insurance Company) that deceased would not come under the category of third party is hereby rejected. The said finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. I do not find any merit in this appeal. 6. Accordingly, this appeal, being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneets