Chattisgarh High Court
New India Insurance (Correct Name As ... vs Babulal Sahu on 1 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:14989
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 300 of 2020
Digitally
signed by
HARNEET
HARNEET KAUR
KAUR Date:
2026.04.02
10:53:29
+0530
1 - New India Insurance (Correct Name As Assurance) Company Limited
Through Division Office, Madina Building Jail Road, Raipur, District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G.-C-5457) (Non-Applicant
No. 3), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Appellant
versus
1 - Babulal Sahu S/o Jodhan Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Kurud,
Post Kutela, Police Station And Tahsil Arang, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Devki Bai Sahu W/o Babulal Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Village
Kurud, Post Kutela, Police Station And Tahsil Arang, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Satobai Wd/o Late Goverdhan Sahu Aged About 71 Years R/o Village
Kurud, Post Kutela, Police Station And Tahsil Arang, District Raipur,
2
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Doman Lal Sahu S/o Babulal Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Village
Kurud, Post Kutela, Police Station And Tahsil Arang, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5 - Mohan Dhruv S/o Madhusudan Dhruv Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward
No. 16, Beside Up Jail, Main Road, Bemcha, Police Station, Tahsil And
District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G.-C-5457),
District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
6 - Firoz Alam Ansari S/o Abdul Kayyum Ansari Aged About 34 Years R/o
Village Ghodari, Post Birkoni, Police Station, Tahsil And District
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Registered Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G.-C-
5457), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
MAC No. 299 of 2020
1 - New India Insurance (Correct Name As Assurance) Company Limited, Through Division Office, Madina Building Jail Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer Of Vehicle No. C. G. - C - 5457), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---Appellant Versus 1 - Heerabai Nishad Wd/o Late Ashwani Kumar Nishad Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Kurud, Post Kutela, Police Station And Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 2 - Omkumar Nishad S/o Late Ashwani Kumar Nishad Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Heerabai Nishad, R/o Village Kurud, Post Kutela, Police Station And Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kumkum Nishad D/o Late Ashwani Kumar Nishad Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Heerabai Nishad, R/o Village Kurud, Post Kutela, Police Station And Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chetan Kumar Nishad S/o Jhanglu Nishad Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Kurud, Post Kutela, Police Station And Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Surajbai Nishad W/o Chetan Kumar Nishad Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Kurud, Post Kutela, Police Station And Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants ), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Mohan Dhruv S/o Madhusudan Dhruv, Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No. 16, Beside Up Jail, Main Road, Bemcha, Police Station Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ( Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G. - C - 5457 ), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 7 - Firoz Alam Ansari S/o Abdul Kayyum Ansari, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Ghodari, Post Birkoni, Police Station, Tahsil And District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ( Registered Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G. - C- 5457), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s) 4 For Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal with Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocates For Respondent(s) : None though served SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 01.04.2026
1. Since both of these appeals have arisen out of a common accident and since common question of law and fact is involved in both these appeals, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. The appellant/Insurance company has preferred these appeals calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned awards dated 11/10/2019 (passed separately in Claim Cases No. H-16/2018 and H-10/2018) whereby learned 1 st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund has granted compensation of Rs. 7,10,400/- to the claimants (Babulal & Ors.) for the death of Rupendra Sahu in Claim Case No. H-16/2018 and also granted compensation of Rs. 9,77,200/- to the claimants (Heerabai & Ors.) for the death of Ashwani 5 Nishad in Claim Case No. H-10/2018 and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant/Insurance Company in both the cases.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the accident occurred on 05/07/2017 whereas the offending vehicle was seized on 05/10/2017 i.e. with a delay of three months and there is no explanation on record for the said delay, as such, the vehicle was not involved in the accident and it has falsely been implicated. Hence, the impugned award is liable to be set aside.
4. None present on behalf of the respondents though served.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
6. The sole ground of delay in seizure of the vehicle cannot be considered as sufficient ground for rejecting a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the claimants. Even otherwise, it transpires from the record that the accident occurred on 05/07/2017 and FIR was promptly registered on the same date i.e. on 05/07/2017 and after the matter was investigated, the offending vehicle in question was seized on 05/10/2017 and on that date, charge-sheet was filed and the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Mohan Dhruv was 6 charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC, which has also been proved by the witness on behalf of the Insurance Company namely Arun Kumar Bhoi (NA.W.-1), Investigating Officer/Assistant Sub-Inspector. As such, mere ground of delay in seizure of vehicle cannot be a good ground for setting aside the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal. I do not find any merit in both of these appeals.
7. Accordingly, both the appeals are hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet