1 2026:CGHC:16175 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 360 of 2020 1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Maruti Heights , 4th Floor, Beside Sky Automobiles, Aamanaka, G.E. Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company Of Motor Cycle No. C.G. - 24/j- 1750)...(Appellant) ... Appellant versus 1 - Keertan Kanwar S/o Sunderlal Kanwar Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Sorid Nagar, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh..(Claimant), 2 - Tomendra Kumar Sahu S/o Dujram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Agesara, Post Ranitarai , Durg Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh.. (Driver Of Motor Cycle No. C.G.- 24/j - 1750), 3 - Surendra Tiwari S/o Late Goverdhan Tiwari Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Chitod, Thana Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Motor Cycle No. C.G. - 24/j- 1750) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Miss Harneet Kaur appears on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.04.09 12:30:45 +0530 2 (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 08/04/2026 1. The appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act, 1988’) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the award dated 25.11.2019 passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.338/2018 by which liability to pay compensation of Rs.7,12,696/- has been fastened on the Insurance Company. 2. Miss Harneet Kaur, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there was false implantation of the offending vehicle in the accident in order to claim compensation and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable. 3. None appears on behalf of the respondents though served. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered her submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. A careful perusal of the written statement filed by the Insurance Company would show that the Insurance Company has only taken a plea that the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective licence and the offending vehicle was being 3 plied in breach of terms of policy, which the Claims Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, held that the said plea/fact is not established. Since the plea of false implantation of the offending vehicle has not been taken before the Claims Tribunal, the Claims Tribunal did not look into the said aspect. However, the Insurance Company has examined Puneet Rathore, Law Officer, who has stated that since the insured vehicle does not find place in the documents (Ex.-D/2 to D/5), no accident has taken place from the insured vehicle. However, the said fact cannot be relied upon for the reason that no such plea was taken in the written statement. As such, new ground cannot be taken before this Court to take the other party by surprise. 6. I do not find any merit in this Appeal, which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve