1 2026:CGHC:13078 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 410 of 2020 1 - National Insurance Company Limited Through Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor Mobin Mahal, Besides Of Lal Ganga Shopping Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh...............(Insurer Of Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. C.G.- 08-W-2476), ... Appellant versus 1 - Kaushilya Soni Wd/o Late Shri Hiralal Soni, Aged About 54 Years R/o Ward No. 40, Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh...................(Claimant), 2 - Bhola Soni S/o Shri Shiv Soni, Aged About 27 Years R/o House No. 71, Ward No. 41, Talab Par Mohara, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh................(Registered Owner Of Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. C.G.-08-W-2476)...............Non-Applicant No. 1 ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.03.20 18:26:31 +0530 2 (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 18/03/2026 : 1. The appellant/National Insurance Company has preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act, 1988’) challenging the award dated 4.12.2019 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.752/2018 by which the claim petition filed by respondent No.1 herein under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 was allowed and liability to pay compensation of Rs.5,25,000/- has been fastened on the Insurance Company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle and did not have valid driving licence and as such, the Insurance Company is not responsible. He would further submit that in the documents (Ex.-D/1 to D/12), which were proved by Sant Kumar Baghmare (NAW-1), Head Constable, it is clearly mentioned that the deceased was driving the vehicle and he was not having valid driving licence and as such, the Insurance Company is not responsible. 3. None appears for the respondents in two rounds. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered the submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 3 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, after going through the record and considering the statement of Sant Kumar Baghmare (NAW- 1), Head Constable, I am of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was not driving the offending vehicle and the same was being driven by Bhola Soni (respondent No.2 herein) is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the impugned policy is act only policy. A careful perusal of the record would show that no step has been taken to prove the said fact before the Claims Tribunal. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that this ground cannot be taken at this stage. The Appeal being devoid of any merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve