1 2026:CGHC:18134 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 865 of 2020 1 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Bramh Road Ambikapur, In Front Of Kumkum Hotel, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Smt. Kamlesh Agrawal Wd/o Late Roshanlal Agrawal Aged About 60 Years Caste Agrawal, R/o Village Kansabel, Police Station Kansabel, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Bulbul Bansal Wd/o Late Govind Bansal Aged About 33 Years Caste Agrawal, R/o Village Kansabel, Police Station Kansabel, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Minor Raunak Bansal S/o Late Govind Bansal Aged About 11 Years Through Their Mother Smt. Bulbul Bansal, Caste Agrawal, R/o Village Kansabel, Police Station Kansabel, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Govind Bansal Aged 09 Years, Through Their Mother Smt. Bulbul Bansal, Caste Agrawal, R/o Village Kansabel, Police Station Kansabel, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Deepak Bansal S/o Shri Sudarshan Agrawal Aged About 34 Years KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.04.22 19:32:00 +0530 2 Caste Agrawal, R/o Kansabel, Police Station Kansabel, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 21/04/2026 1. The appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act, 1988’) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the award dated 25.02.2020 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.56/2019 whereby while granting compensation under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988, an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was awarded to the third party/driver of the offending vehicle. 2. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the deceased was not paid driver and was driving the car being relative of respondent No.5/owner of the car and, therefore, the claimants are not entitled for compensation under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988. 3. None appears for the respondents. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered his submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. A careful perusal of the written statement would show that the Insurance Company has not taken a plea that the deceased was not paid driver. The only plea taken by the Insurance Company is that the deceased was relative of owner of the vehicle. One Manish Kumar Agrawal (NAW-1), Administrative Officer, has been examined on behalf of the Insurance Company. He has only stated that the deceased was relative of owner of the vehicle. The plea sought to be taken before this Court was neither pleaded nor established. 6. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this Appeal, which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve