1 2025:CGHC:35901 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 283 of 2022 Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Plot Number 317, Tara Complex, Near S.B.I. Main Branch, T.P. Nagar, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. At Present 3rd Floor, Chawal Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle Tractor No. Cg - 11 - Da-2804). … Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Niramati Rathiya W/o Late Pratap Singh Rathiya Aged About 30 Years R/o Fatteganj, Saraibhatha, Thana Kartala, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 2 - Minor Hemlata Rathiya D/o Pratap Singh Rathiya Aged About 13 Years Res No. 2 Is Minor Hence Representing Through Their Mother Smt. Niramati Rathiya, R/o Fatteganj, Saraibhatha, Thana Kartala, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh.(Claimant) 3 - Minor Ranglata Rathiya D/o Pratap Singh Rathiya Aged About 8 Years Res No. 3 Is Minor Hence Representing Through Their Mother Smt. Niramati Rathiya, R/o HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.07.26 11:50:34 +0530 2 Fatteganj, Saraibhatha, Thana Kartala, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh.(Claimant) 4 - Minor Omprakash S/o Pratap Singh Rathiya Aged About 4 Years Res No. 4 Is Minor Hence Representing Through Their Mother Smt. Niramati Rathiya, R/o Fatteganj, Saraibhatha, Thana Kartala, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh.(Claimant) 5 - Mohit Ram Kanwar S/o Samaru Ram Aged About 38 Years R/o Fatteganj, Thana Kartala, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle Tractor No. C.G. 11- Da-2804). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate For Respondents 1- 4 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava on behalf of Mr. A.S. Rajput, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 24.07 .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) challenging the impugned award dated 29/11/2021 passed by Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Korba in Claim Case No. 29/2016, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,25,000/- has been awarded in favour of respondent 3 No. 1 to 4 herein (claimants) for the death of Pratap Singh, aged about 35 years old. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that on 19/01/2016, deceased Pratap Singh, who worked as a Driver for respondent No. 5, was driving the Tractor bearing Registration No. CG 11 – DA-2804 attached with trolley bearing Registration No. CG 11-DA-2805 and was returning to the village but midway breaks of the Tractor failed and it collided with a tree due to which its driver, deceased Pratap Singh got stuck in the steering and suffered grievous injuries on his chest and mouth and was taken to Community Health Centre, Kartala for treatment, however, he died on 20/01/2016 during the course of the treatment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the contents of the first information report (Ex. P/4) have not been accepted by the Claims Tribunal wherein it has clearly been stated that the Tractor was being driven by the driver deceased Pratap Singh in a rash and negligent manner due to which, it collided with a tree and the incident happened as such, the appellant (Insurance Company) is not liable to pay the compensation. He would rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental 4 Insurance Company Limited v. Premlata Shukla and others1 to buttress his submission. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants would support the impugned award and submit that the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and perused the record. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, after consideration of oral and documentary evidence available on record, has clearly recorded a finding that true it is that in the first information report (Ex. P/4), it has been mentioned that accident happened on account of rash and negligent driving of deceased Pratap Singh but eye-witness Nanki Singh (PW-2), on oath, has stated before the Court that at the time of the incident, deceased Pratap Singh was driving the Tractor in slow speed and the accident happened on account of failure of breaks and moreover, the appellant (Insurance Company) has not led any evidence in this regard and not even examined the person at the instance of whom FIR was registered before the Court. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and does not warrant any interference with the impugned award. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant 1 (2007) 13 SCC 476 5 is distinguishable, as such, it would not apply to the facts of the present case. I do not find any merit in this appeal. 7. Accordingly, the instant appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet