1 2025:CGHC:41562 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 60 of 2024 1 - Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited, Through- Its Legal Manager, Present Address-Office No. 501 And 512, 5th Floor, D.B. City Corporate Park, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur (C.G.) -----(Insurer) ... Revisioner versus 1 - Rupesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Ramsing Dewangan, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village And Post- Bori, P.S. - Lalbag, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---- (Claimant) 2 - Kewal Ram Sahu S/o Samaru Ram Sahu, R/o Village- Amgaon, P.S. And Tehsil- Dongargaon, District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ----(Driver) 3 - Rakesh Kumar S/o Chandrabhan, R/o Village-Amgaon, P.S. And Tehsil - Dongargaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ----(Owner) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Revisioner : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : None Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 18/08/2025 1. The revisioner / claimant is aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award dated 18.01.2024 passed by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 79/2022, in the matter of "Rupesh Kumar Dewangan Vs. Kewal Ram Sahu & Others. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the respondent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claimant alleged that on 12.12.2021, an accident occurred involving the vehicle driven by respondent No. 2, due to which the claimant suffered grievous injuries. In the claim petition, the claimant sought compensation amounting to Rs. 57,00,000/- under various heads. In response, respondents No. 2 and 3 submitted their written statements admitting that the driver held a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and that the vehicle was duly insured with the appellant insurance company. They denied liability for the claimed amount. The appellant insurance company filed its written statement denying the claim. It contended that the vehicle was driven in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as the driver was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. The appellant asserted that the driver was intoxicated, which amounted to statutory breach of the insurance policy. Further, the appellant contended that the claimed compensation was excessive and not justified. The learned Claims Tribunal, by its impugned award dated 18.01.2024, partly allowed the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The tribunal made the findings that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, resulting in injuries to the claimant. The tribunal did not find any evidence to establish a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the appellant. The claim of contributory negligence was not established against the claimant and the claimant was held entitled to compensation of Rs. 74,601/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e., 17.03.2022, until actual payment. 3 The appellant insurance company submits that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is per se illegal and bad in law, and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the revisioner submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed a grave legal error in deciding Issue No. 2 against the appellant insurance company. The company produced evidence through the investigator that the transport commercial vehicle involved in the accident was carrying unauthorized passengers at the relevant time. This fact establishes a statutory breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Despite such clear evidence, the finding of tribunal recorded in paragraph 15, stating that the company failed to lead evidence, is perverse and liable to be set aside. The learned Claims Tribunal ought to have held that the vehicle was driven in breach of the terms and conditions of insurance policy. Specifically, at the time of the accident, the vehicle was used for carrying passengers, which was unauthorized and impermissible under the policy. This misuse of the vehicle constitutes a material breach disentitling the claimant from receiving insurance benefits. Moreover, it is evident from Exhibit P/1 that respondent No. 2 was in a drunken state while driving the vehicle. Driving under the influence is a direct violation of statutory provisions and the terms of the insurance policy. The tribunal erred in not recognizing this breach and should have accordingly exonerated the insurance company from liability. Furthermore, there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. The accident occurred due to a head-on collision between two transport vehicles. Therefore, the negligence of claimant cannot be ruled out and must be assessed at 50%, reducing or negating the s liability of insurance company. The appellant reserves the right to raise 4 other permissible grounds during the course of arguments. In light of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned award dated 18.01.2024 passed by the III Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 79/2022 titled 'Rupesh Kumar Dewangan Vs. Kewal Ram Sahu & Others,' in the interest of justice. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the revisioner and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the revision. 5. The present revision petition challenges the award dated 18.01.2024 passed by the III Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 79/2022, wherein the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was partly allowed. The tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, the driver of the vehicle, resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant. The tribunal also observed that the appellant insurance company failed to establish any breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy or contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. Accordingly, the claimant was awarded compensation of Rs. 74,601/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual payment. 6. The revisioner / insurance company disputes the award on several grounds, primarily contending that the vehicle was used in breach of the terms of the insurance policy by carrying unauthorized passengers at the time of the accident. The revisioner has placed reliance on the evidence of an investigator to substantiate this claim and asserted that the driver was under the influence of alcohol, which constitutes a statutory breach of the insurance policy. Further, the revisioner submits 5 that contributory negligence was involved on the part of the claimant as the accident was a result of a head-on collision between two transport vehicles, warranting a reduction or denial of compensation. While these contentions raise important legal questions, it is pertinent to note that the amount awarded by the tribunal is relatively meager. In the interest of justice and judicial economy, this Court is of the considered view that the present case does not merit interference. 7. The scope of revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. relating to cases of the Motor Vehicles Act is limited and cannot be exercised lightly, especially when the amount involved is nominal and the findings of fact have been recorded by the tribunal after examining the evidence. Without delving into the merits or reappraising the evidence, it is appropriate to dismiss the revision petition. The tribunal has recorded a reasoned award, and no glaring illegality or jurisdictional error has been demonstrated that would justify interference in this matter. 8. It is further clarified that this dismissal of the revision petition shall not operate as a bar to any other claims or petitions arising out of the same accident. Such other petitions or claims shall be adjudicated independently on their respective merits, uninfluenced by the observations made herein. 9. In view of the above, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge