1 2026:CGHC:22753 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1026 of 2020 S B I General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Sbi General Insurance Company Limited, Ii Floor , Rama Port, Main Road Near Mahima Big Bazar, Vyapar Vihar Road, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Laxmi W/o Late Shri Ramavatar Aged About 30 Years Caste Panika, R/o Village Kotmi Kamalpur, Thana Surajpur , Tehsil Ramanujnagar , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku Sakshi D/o Late Shri Ramavatar Aged About 10 Years Caste Panika, Minors Represented By Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Laxmi , W/o Late Shri Ramavatar, R/o Village Kotmi Kamalpur, Thana Surajpur , Tehsil Ramanujnagar , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Prateek Kumar S/o Late Shri Ramavatar Aged About 7 Years Caste Panika, Minors Represented By Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Laxmi , W/o Late Shri Ramavatar, R/o Village Kotmi Kamalpur, Thana Surajpur , Tehsil Ramanujnagar , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Mankuwar Wd/o Late Shri Mohan Sai Aged About 50 Years Caste Panika, Minors Represented By Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Laxmi , W/o Late Shri Ramavatar, R/o Village Kotmi Kamalpur, Thana Surajpur , Tehsil Ramanujnagar , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Arijan Prasad S/o Late Shri Amolsai Aged About 38 Years Caste Rajwar , R/o Katgodi, Thana And Tehsil Sonhat, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 6 - Manoj Tripathi S/o Ram Milan Tripathi Aged About 46 Years Caste Brahman , R/o Naugai, Thana And Tehsil Sonhat , District Koriya Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate For Respondents No.01-04 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondents No.05-06 : Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Adv. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 14.05.2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant- Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dt. 06.02.2020, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.15,82,400/- as compensation to the claimants and liability to pay compensation has been fastened upon the insurance company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned Claims tribunal is absolutely unjustified in fastening the liability to pay compensation upon the insurance company, as the vehicle in question was wrongly implanted in the accident. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Thus, the instant appeal be allowed and impugned award is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned award and prays for dismissal of this appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. In the case at hand, a careful perusal of the record would show 3 that though initially the FIR was registered against unknown person, but thereafter in the Charge-sheet (Ex.P/01) name of the driver of the offending vehicle has been mentioned as an accused and he has been charged for offence under Section 304-A of IPC. Even otherwise, eye- witness, namely, Umanath Tiwari, has also clearly deposed about the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident in question. As such, learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely justified in fastening the liability to pay compensation upon the insurance company, as the question of offending vehicle wrongly implanted in the accident in question could not be proved by the insurance company. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said findings of the learned Claims Tribunal, as the same is based on evidence available on record. 6. In that view of the matter, the instant appeal is dismissed being meritless. No cost. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if