##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:21577

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MAC No. 728 of 2019

1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Divisional OfÏce Dr. Rajendar

Prasad Chowk, Parmanand Building G.E. Road, Durg, Tahsil And District

Durg ChhatÝsgarh., District : Durg, ChhatÝsgarh

... Appellant

versus

1 - Amritpal Singh S/o Mehar Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o Smri

Nagar, Plot No. B/667, Street No. 23, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg

ChhatÝsgarh. (Claimant/ Injured), District : Durg, ChhatÝsgarh

2 - Rajkishor Roy S/o Sukhendra Roy Aged About 35 Years R/o Village

Ranchi Barhi Mohalla, Thana Sukhdev Nagar, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)

(Driver Of Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 17 - H / 6665) (Driver), District : Ranchi,

Jharkhand

3 - Surendra Prasad S/o Jaishankar Prasad Alias Mushilal Shah Jaishankar

Transport, Piskabhore Itki Road, Ranchi, (Jharkhand) (Owner Of Vehicle

Truck No. C.G. 17 - H / 6665( (Owner), District : Ranchi, Jharkhand

... Respondent(s)

2

For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate

For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate

SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Judgment on Board

08.05.2026

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988

has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company

challenging the impugned award dated 03/12/2018 (Annexure

A/1) passed by learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. 70/2015 whereby

compensation of Rs. 19,59,789/- has been awarded in favour of

respondent No. 1/claimant for the injuries suffered by him and

the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened

upon the appellant/Insurance Company. Cross-objection under

Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC has also been filed by respondent No.

1/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would

submit that reasonable time was not granted to the

appellant/Insurance Company for adducing evidence and by

order dated 28/11/2018, the Claims Tribunal rejected the

application filed by the appellant/Insurance Company seeking

further time for adducing evidence and after hearing the final

argument, the impugned award was passed on 03/12/2018. The

3

additional documents obtained by the appellant/Insurance

Company from RTO Latehar (Jharkhand) have been filed before

this Court along with application under Order 41 Rule 27 read

with Section 151 of CPC which clearly demonstrates that the

driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective

license on the date of the accident and he, in fact, possessed a

fake license, therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is

liable to be exonerated from the liability of payment of

compensation. He would further submit that the compensation

awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not

warrant enhancement.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1/claimant would submit

that accident occurred on 15/03/2012 and the claim application

was preferred on 16/12/2013 and the Insurance Company

themselves declared before the Claims Tribunal on 26/10/2018

that they do not wish to adduce further evidence and

accordingly, their opportunity for adducing evidence was closed

and the matter was fixed for final argument on 02/11/2018,

however, the matter was adjourned at the request of the

Insurance Company on 02/11/2018 and 13/11/2018 and on

28/11/2018, the Insurance Company again sought time for filing

additional documents, however, the Claims Tribunal after

granting several opportunities to the Insurance Company,

refused to grant further time holding that no further time would

4

be granted to the Insurance Company and after hearing final

arguments of the parties, passed the impugned award on

03/12/2018, which is absolutely in accordance with law. He

would further submit that the application filed by the

appellant/Insurance Company under Order 41 Rule 27 read with

Section 151 of CPC cannot be entertained at this stage in light of

the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of

Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) by LRs. and Anr. v. Abdul