Page No.1 of 4 IN MAC-828-2022 & MAC-831-2022 2025:CGHC:59750 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 828 of 2022 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, 4th Floor Maruti Heights, Beside Sky Auto Maruti Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, Raipur District Raipur, Pin 492010, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Desh Bai W/o Baliram Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Sursabandha, P.S. Rajim, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vijay Kumar Sahu S/o Dani Ram Sahu, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Sursabandha, P.S. Rajim, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WITH MAC No. 831 of 2022 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, 4th Floor Maruti Heights, Beside Sky Auto Maruti Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, Raipur District Raipur, Pin 492010, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Urmila Bai W/o Late Ghansu Ram Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Sursabandha, P.S. Rajim, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vijay Kumar Sahu S/o Dani Ram Sahu, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Sursabandha, P.S. Rajim, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 4 IN MAC-828-2022 & MAC-831-2022 For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Suresh Tandon, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 09.12.2025 1. Regard being had to the similitude of the questions of facts and law involved and being arsing out of a common award dt. 12.05.2022, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, both these appeals are clubbed together, heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. In these appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the “MV Act”), the appellant-Insurance Company is calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of common impugned award dated 12.05.2022, passed by the learned Claims Tribunal, whereby the claim application filed by the respondents No.01/claimants has been allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.39,153.51/- & Rs.60,988.34/- respectively have been awarded to them, which amount is directed to be payable by the appellant-Insurance Company herein. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that in the present case, on the date of accident, the claimants were traveling as gratuitous passengers in the offending vehicle, whose risk was not covered under the insurance policy. Therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in Page No.3 of 4 IN MAC-828-2022 & MAC-831-2022 fastening the liability to pay the compensation upon the appellant- insurance company. As such, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.02 would support the impugned award and prays for dismissal of both the appeals. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. In the case at hand, a careful perusal of the record would show that neither the plea that on the date of accident the claimants were traveling as gratuitous passengers in the offending vehicle nor any evidence to establish the said aspect has been led by the appellant- Insurance Company before the learned Claims Tribunal and, therefore, the said ground cannot be allowed to be taken at this stage before this Court for the first time. As such, the said plea is hereby rejected. Even otherwise, the learned Claims Tribunal after conducting full-fledged trial, found that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle, which was insured with the appellant- Insurance Company, was being plied in rash and negligent manner and, due to which, the claimants suffered injuries and, since breach of the policy condition was not found proved, fastened the liability to pay compensation upon the appellant- Insurance Company, which, in Page No.4 of 4 IN MAC-828-2022 & MAC-831-2022 the considered opinion of this Court, is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. As such, I do not consider it a fit case warranting interference in the impugned award dated 12.05.2022, passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 7. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in both the appeals. It deserve to be and are hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if