1 2026:CGHC:15486 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1219 of 2023 Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Through- Branch Manager, Ground Floor, Vanijya Bhavan, Devendra Nagar Road, Near H.D.F.C. Bank, Devendranagar Road, District Raipur, C.G. (Insurance Company Of Motorcycle No. C.G. 24 N 4196). ... Appellant versus 1 - Jageshwar S/o - Late Mahesh Kumar Usendi Aged About 19 Years Caste - Gond, R/o Gram- Awari, Thana And Tahsil- Daundi, District: Balod, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Roshan Kumar S/o Late Mahesh Kumar Usendi Aged About 17 Years Caste - Gond Represented Through Guardian Brother Applicant No. 1 Jageshwar, R/o Gram- Awari, Thana And Tahsil- Daundi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Siyabai W/o Late Hagruram Aged About 55 Years Caste - Gond, R/o Gram- Awari, Thana And Tahsil- Daundi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Manoj Gupta S/o Balram Gupta Aged About 35 Years Caste- Baniya, R/o Ward No. 1, Hatri Bajarpara Gunderdehi, Thana And Tehsil- Gunderdehi, District Balod, C.G. (Driver Of Motorcycle No. C.G. 24 N 4196). 5 - Mordhwaj Soni S/o - Mannulal Soni Aged About 28 Years R/o - Ward No. 3, Sonipara Gunderdehi, Post, Thana And Tehsil- Gunderdehi, District Balod, C.G. (Owner Of Motorcycle No. C.G. 24 N 4196). ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate For Res. Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Swapinl Thawani, Advocates AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.04.15 18:30:28 +0530 2 For Res. Nos. 4 & 5 : None present, though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 06/04/2026 1. This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short” M.V. Act) has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the award dated 12.12.2022, passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod District- Baldod (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 167/2021. 2. By the award impugned, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 11,20,000/- in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 3/claimants, who are unfortunate mother and children of deceased on account of death of deceased Mahesh Kumar Usendi, aged about 39 years, in a motor accident that occurred on 28.02.2021 by rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 24 N. 4196 (for brevity, 'offending vehicle') driven by respondent No. 4 and owned by respondent No. 5 and insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. 3. As per pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, the deceased met with an accident on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, upon which a crime was registered against the respondent No. 4/ driver. The deceased was aged about 39 years and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month by working as a Mason. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 40,50,000/- was claimed by the respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants. 3 4. Respondents No. 4 & 5 have filed their joint written statement denying the averments made in the claim application and also denying the involvement of the offending vehicle in the said accident. 5. The appellant/Insurance Company also filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim application; and pleaded the violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and also pleaded that the offending vehicle was not involved in the said accident. 6. On the basis of the above broad pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed as many as five issues and after appreciating the material available on record decided the same in favour of the appellant/claimant and awarded above stated compensation. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident which was made involved after four months of the accident. He submits that the FIR was initially lodged against the unknown vehicle and when seizure of the vehicle was done after four months of the accident, thus, it is not proved by cogent and prudent evidence that accident occurred on account of involvement of the offending vehicle. Therefore the impugned award may be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the insurance company was required to prove its pleadings by leading cogent and prudent evidence. Though the FIR was lodged against the unknown vehicle but after due investigation the police has found the involvement of the offending vehicle and thus, the vehicle was seized. After due investigation the chargesheet was filed and as such no complaint was raised by the appellant/insurance company with regard to filing the chargesheet or otherwise stating that the offending vehicle was wrongly involved in the said accident. Apart from that he submits that they have not led to prove this pleading. The 4 learned Tribunal has also recorded a categorical finding with regard to happening of the accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Thus, appeal has no merit and liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. The only contention raised by Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant that the FIR was lodged against the unknown vehicle and after four months the offending vehicle was seized. The Tribunal has categorically framed a issue with regard to negligence on the part of respondent No. 4. From the evidence on record the learned Claims Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident occurred by rash and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Though the insurance company has taken a plea that the offending vehicle was not involved but the reason best known to them, they have not examined any witness to prove this fact. Thus, plea taken by the Insurance Company remained unproved. It is settled position of law that once the insurance company takes a plea, it is required to prove by cogent and prudent evidence. In this case in hand, the Insurance Company failed to prove the same, thus, appeals fails and is hereby dismissed. 11. Pending interlocutory application (s), if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Ami