1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 56 of 2026 The Manager, Chola Mandalam M.S. Insurance Company Limited Paras Complex, Station Road Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) (Wrongly Mentioned in the impugned order as Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., C/o Branch Manager, Office No. 403, Station Road, Near Gurudwara, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh)(Non-Applicant No. 2 Before Tribunal / Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Pulsar Reg. No. Cg 07 Cc 0743) ... Petitioner versus 1. Kavita Dewangan Wd/o Late Keshav Prasad Dewangan, aged about 31 years (wrongly mentioned as D/o Late Keshav Prasad Dewangan), Residents of Bajrang Para, Kohka, Road No. 16, Kohka, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh (claimants before the Tribunal) 2. Manvi Dewangan D/o Late Keshav Prasad Dewangan, aged about 7 years (Though Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order), Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Kavita Dewangan Wd/o Late Keshav Prasad Dewangan, residents of Bajrang Para, Kohka, Road No. 16, Kohka, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh (claimants before the Tribunal) 3. Khushal Dewangan S/o Late Keshav Prasad Dewangan, aged about 3 years (Though Not Mentioned in the Impugned Order), Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Kavita Dewangan Wd/o Late Keshav Prasad Dewanga, Residents Of Bajrang Para, Kohka, Road No. 16, Kohka, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh (claimants before the Tribunal) 4. Sharda Prasad Dewangan S/o Late Dwarka Prasad Dewangan aged about 61 years residents of Bajrang Para, Kohka, Road No. 16, Kohka, 2 Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh (claimants before the Tribunal) 5. Alka Dewangan W/o Sharda Prasad Dewangan,aged about 58 years Residents of Bajrang Para, Kohka, Road No. 16, Kohka, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh (claimants before the Tribunal) 6. Devendra Singh Shekhawat S/o Naresh Singh Shekhawat, aged about 26 years R/o Near Khel Singh Petrol Pump, House No. 581, Ward No. 35, Ganjpara, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No. 1 Before The Tribunal/owner and Driver of Offending Vehicle Pulsar Reg. No. CG 07 Cc 0743) ... Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 16/01/2026 Heard on admission. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the learned 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, CG in MACT No. 261 of 2022 where the application filed by the petitioner for re- investigation into the accident through Superintendent of Police, Durg has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate that there are glaring and irreconcilable contradictions regarding the very occurrence and the manner in which the alleged accident is said to have taken place. According to him, the case diary and Panchayatnama casually mention about a road accident whereas the hospital record shows that the injuries were as a result of self fall, thereby negating the involvement of any other vehicle. The Tribunal is argued to have erred in 3 overlooking this fundamental contradiction, which goes to the root of the claim. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that implication of the vehicle bearing registration No. CG-07-CC-0743 is wholly doubtful and unsupported by any cogent or reliable evidence. He submits that no independent eyewitnesses, contemporaneous document or mechanical inspection report substantiting the involvement of the said vehicle has been brought on record which renders the claim of rash and ngligent driving wholly speculative. Counsel for the petitioner submits that brother of the deceased namely Khagendra Kumar Dewangan in his statement recorded during investigtion has categorically stated that the deceased met with an accident after falling from his own vehicle, and that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider this vital admission made by a close family member, which completely demolishes the claimant’s version rendering involvement of any third party vehicle. He further submits that there is a properly unexplained delay in lodging the report as the acident had occurred on 01.11.2021 whereas the report was lodged after about three months i.e. on 27.11.2022, which creates a doubt about the genuineness of the alleged accient. He therefore, submits that in order to do justice, re-investigation in the case whether the deceased died in an accident or otherwise is necessary and therefore, the order impugned rejecting the application for re-investigation is bad in law and liable to be set aside. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents on record. 5. From the perusal of the documents including the order impugned it is apparent that the claimants filed a claim case for compensation on 11.05.2022 and on 21.07.2022 the insurance company had put in its appearance, and thereafter matter was fixed for the evidence of the parties. The material available on record also shows that the application for re- 4 investigation of the case was filed about two years after the filing of the case, though it could have been filed at the preliminary stage just after the claim case was filed. No reasonable explanation for such delay in filing the application has been offered by the petitioner herein. Learned Tribunal has rejected the application on the ground of delay and also citing the instructions from the High Court for expecitious disposal of the claim cases preferably within a period of one year from its presentation. 6. Having thus considered the fact that the application seeking re- investigation into the alleged road accident involving the death of Keshav Prasad Devangan was filed by the petitioner with a huge unexplained delay of about two and a half year from the date of instiution of the claim, and that the claim cases are expected to be decided expeditiously so that the parties aggrieved can get the compensation as early as possible, the order impugned rejecting the said application appears to be just and proper, and warrants no interference in this petition. 7. Petition thus being devoid of any substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyotishi AVANISH JYOTISHI Digitally signed by AVANISH JYOTISHI Date: 2026.01.19 13:22:37 +0530