1 MAC No. 319 of 2022 2025:CGHC:39173 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 319 of 2022 1. United India Insurance Company Limited, by Branch Manager, United Indian Insurance Company Ltd. Bramh Road, Ambikapour, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. Through Authorized Signatory United India Insurance Company Limited, Deputy Manager/Officer In-Charge (TP-Hub), United India Insurance Company Limited, First Floor, LIC Building Magarpara Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of the offending Vehicle No.C.G. 15 DB - 7323) ... Appellant versus 1. Mansi Goyal S/o Rajesh Goyal, Aged About 18 Years, R/o 16-Ketka Road, Lankapara Surajpur, P.S. Post, Tehsil & District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 2. Bajrang Lal Agrawal S/o Late Om Prakash Agrawal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Main Road, Nawapara, Surajpour, P.S. Post Tehsil & District Surajpur Chhattissgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle No. C.G. 15 DB-7323) ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.08.11 17:09:42 +0530 2 MAC No. 319 of 2022 3. Lal Ji Chouhan S/o Chhotu Chouhan, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Dasai Posvash, District Mirzapur (U.P.). Present Address House of Shrijal Glass Agency, Nawapara, Surajpur, Tehsil & District Surajpour Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle No. C.G. 15 DB-7323) ... Respondents For Appellant :- Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate. For Respondents :- Ms. Neelam Khan, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 06.08 .2025 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 29.11.2021 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 23/2019, by which the Claims Tribunal has fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company to pay compensation of ₹3,10,672/- along with the interest to the claimants. 3 MAC No. 319 of 2022 2. Mr. Anupam Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed gross error in granting compensation amount of 3,10,672/- along with the interest to the ₹ claimants without appreciating the fact of false implantation of vehicle in question/offending vehicle bearing Registration No.CG-15-DB-7323, in order to recover the amount of compensation from the Insurance Company, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the aforesaid amount. 3. Ms. Neelam Khan, learned counsel for the respondents, would support the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal and submit that with regard to the plea of false implication, no evidence has been brought on record by the Insurance Company, therefore, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 4 MAC No. 319 of 2022 5. The plea has been taken by the Insurance Company that the vehicle bearing Registration No. No.CG-15-DB- 7323 has falsely been implanted in the accident as the said vehicle did not involve in the accident and evidence has also been led by the Insurance Company of Kundam Kumar Mishra (NAW-1). However in his statement NAW-1 did not say anything about the false implantation of the offending vehicle and also did not say that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident, he only said that the accident occurred on account of collision of two motorcycles and even he did not say that the offending vehicle was being plied in terms and conditions of the Insurance Police. As such, the Insurance Company has failed to establish its plea of false implantation of the vehicle in question. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and accordingly, I hereby affirm the said finding of the Claims Tribunal. 5 MAC No. 319 of 2022 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal, it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit