1 2026:CGHC:14600 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2276 of 2024 Chola Mandlam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd., Through Claim Manager, Office Address Simran Tower, 2nd Floor Near Lic Office, Pandri, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Appellant versus 1 - Chhabi Lal Darro S/o Ajuram Aged About 47 Years R/o Village - Khaspara, Ward No. 02, Chowdi, Lilejhar, Kanker, District Kanker, North Bastar Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Droupati Darro W/o Chhabi Lal Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Khaspara, Ward No. 02, Chowdi, Lilejhar, Kanker, District Kanker, North Bastar Chhattisgarh. 3 - Deepak Kumar Darro S/o Chhabi Lal Aged About 21 Years R/o Village - Khaspara, Ward No. 02, Chowdi, Lilejhar, Kanker, District Kanker, North Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Claimants). 4 - Ashok Kumar Thakur S/o Dukhharan Lal Thakur Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. Khuteri (Rang), Police Station And Tehsil Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh. (Driver). 5 - Dani Ram Tandon S/o Jagannath Tandon Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No. 08, Village Rahud, Police Station Ranchirai, District Balod Chhattisgarh. (Owner) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Res. Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate For Res. Nos. 4 & 5 : None despite service AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.04.06 18:26:22 +0530 2 {Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput} Order on Board 27/03/2026 1. Heard on I. A. No. 1/2024, which is an application for condonation of delay of 268 days in filing the appeal. 2. Though opposed, however, looking to the reason stated in the application, this Court is satisfied that the appellant has sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 268 days in filing the appeal. 3. Accordingly, the application {I.A. No. 1/2024} is allowed. Delay of 268 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Herd on admission. 5. The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, “MV Act, 1988”) calling in question the validity, correctness and judicial propriety of the impugned award dated 29.11.2023 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) (for short, 'Claims Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 229/2022. 6. By the Award impugned, against the claim of Rs.94,40,000/- the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 72,00,916/- in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 3/Claimants, who are unfortunate parents and younger brother of deceased, on account of death of deceased- Bhupendra Kumar Darro in an accident that took place on 15.02.2022 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Bolero Pickup) bearing registration No. CG22-AC/8305 by respondent No. 4/Driver owned by respondent No. 5/Owner and insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. 3 7. As per pleading of the claim application deceased/Bhupendra Kumar Darro, who was aged about 24 years and was working as Constable in the CIFS, Bhilai and was earning Rs. 45,000/- per month died in an motor accident that occurred on 15.02.2022. Thus, above compensation was claimed. 8. Respondents No. 1 & 2 filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application and pleaded that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company, therefore, the liability to pay compensation would be upon the appellant / Insurance Company . 9. Appellant/Insurance Company filed separate written statement denying substantial pleading made by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/claimants and pleaded that there is a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 10. The Claims Tribunal framed as many as five issues on the basis of above broad pleadings made in the claim application and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, above stated compensation has been awarded. 11.Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that offending vehicle was not involved in the accident, the FIR was lodged after delay of six days. The owner of the offending vehicle was involved in some other accident also. Thus, the impugned award may be set aside. 12. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3/Claimants while supporting the impugned award would submit that the police after usual investigation filed the charge-sheet against the respondent No. 4/Driver and nothing brought in the record to suggest that the 4 appellant/Insurance Company has taken any steps against the said chargesheet or to say that the offending vehicle was not involved in the said accident. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including record of the Claims Tribunal. 14. The pleadings of non-involvement of the offending vehicle is taken by the appellant/Insurance Company. Once the pleadings has been made in the written Statement, it is incumbent upon the Insurance Company to prove the same. From the record it does not appear that any witness on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company has been examined to prove the pleading made in the written statement. 15. From the perusal of record, it also appears that after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the respondent No. 4/driver of the offending vehicle. In absence of any pleading to prove the particular fact raised by the appellant, this Court is not in agreement to the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. Appeal, thus, fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ami