1 2026:CGHC:19561 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 121 of 2020 Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited Through Authorized Signatory - Ramesh Kumar Sinha, Aged About 32 Years, R/o -Ii Floor, Jeet Towers, Ge Road, Raipur, P.S. Azad Chowk, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant Versus 1 - Rukhsana Khatoon W/o Late Afzal Mansori Aged About 34 Years R/o Bada Ashok Nagar, P.S. -Gudiyari, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sahil Alam S/o Late Afzal Mansori Aged About 11 Years (Minor, Through Rukhsana Khatoon, W/o Late Afzal Mansori, Aged - About 34 Years) R/o Bada Ashok Nagar, P.S. -Gudiyari, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sabiya Khatoon D/o Late Afzal Mansori Aged About 9 Years (Minor, Through Rukhsana Khatoon, W/o Late Afzal Mansori, Aged - About 34 Years) R/o Bada Ashok Nagar, P.S. -Gudiyari, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sajida Khatoon D/o Late Afzal Mansori Aged About 7 Years (Minor, Through Rukhsana Khatoon, W/o Late Afzal Mansori, Aged - About 34 Years) R/o Bada Ashok Nagar, P.S. -Gudiyari, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Yasmin Khatoon D/o Late Afzal Mansori Aged About 3 Years (Minor, Through Rukhsana Khatoon, W/o Late Afzal Mansori, Aged - About 34 Years) R/o Bada Ashok Nagar, P.S. -Gudiyari, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Anwar Hussain S/o Rasoolmiyan Mansori Aged About 75 Years R/o Bada Ashok Nagar, P.S. -Gudiyari, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Claimant No. 1 To 6), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Mohammad Shafi Allah Khan S/o M. D. Mazhar Khan Aged About 40 Years R/o Bada Ashok Nagar, P.S. - Gudiyari, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No. 1), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 28.04.2026 1. Heard on IA No.01, which is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing this appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. 3. Delay in filing this appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Heard on admission. 5. In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) the appellant- Insurance Company is challenging impugned award dt. 21.08.2018, whereby the claim application filed by the claimants has been allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded to them and said amount is held to be payable by the appellant- Insurance Company herein. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submits that the learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimants by recording findings which are perverse and contrary to the record. Hence, the instant appeal be allowed and impugned award is liable to be set aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered his rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. In the case at hand, the learned Claims tribunal has clearly 3 recorded and finding that the deceased was the owner of the offending vehicle and according to the insurance policy premium with regard to personal accidental coverage for owner and driver was also paid and, for which, liability has only been confined to Rs.1,00,000/- and, therefore, proceeded to award compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimants. The said findings, in the considered opinion of this Court, are correct finding of fact based on evidence and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. I do not find any good ground to entertain this appeal and same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being meritless. No cost. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if