1 2025:CGHC:46663 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 176 of 2024 1 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Shivmohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri City And P.S Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Keyur Bhushan Sharma S/o Ramswaroop Sharma Aged About 56 Years R/o Bhumiya, Ward No. 04, P.S. Town And Tahsil Tilda Nevra, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ravishankar Tandon S/o Umendra Das Tandon Aged About 30 Years R/o Sendri, Mahaveer Ward, P.S. Bhathapara Rural, Tahsil Bhathapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Rathore, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11.09.2025 1. The revisioner respectfully prefers the instant revision petition, being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 29/07/2024 (ANNEXURE- ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 R/1) passed by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Case No. MACT/15/2023. 2. The respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.), seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident on 16/11/2022. It was alleged that the claimant was crossing the road on a Vespa scooter when he was hit by a motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 04 NV 1303, driven by respondent No. 2, who was also the owner of the vehicle, resulting in severe injuries to the claimant. During investigation, it was revealed that respondent No. 2 was intoxicated and did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the accident. Moreover, respondent No. 2 remained ex-parte throughout the tribunal proceedings. The offending vehicle was insured by the revisioner, who contested the claim by filing an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which was allowed vide order dated 04/01/2023 (Annexure-R/2). The revisioner contended that the accident was a head-on collision caused due to contributory negligence of both parties; however, this contention was not considered due to the absence of respondent No. 2. Relying on the evidence and arguments presented, the learned tribunal held respondent No. 2 solely liable for the accident and noted that the vehicle was driven in violation of the insurance policy terms. Despite this, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 82,921/- to the claimant and directed the revisioner to pay the 3 amount initially and recover the same from respondent No. 2, as per the impugned award dated 29/07/2024 (Annexure-R/1). To satisfy the condition precedent for challenging the award, the revisioner has deposited Rs. 25,000/- before the learned tribunal, the memo of which is annexed as Annexure-R/3. Hence this revision. 3. Leaned counsel for the revisioner respectfully submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is factually and legally erroneous, being contrary to the evidence on record and bad in law. The Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence, including the testimony of the investigating officer and the legal officer, as well as the charge-sheet incorporating Sections 3, 181, and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. He further avers that in particular, the Tribunal erred in disregarding that the driver and owner of the offending vehicle did not hold a valid driving license as mandated under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which prohibits driving without a valid license. Moreover, the owner-driver was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident, constituting a penal offense under Section 185 and a fundamental breach of the insurance policy conditions. Despite these violations, the Tribunal wrongly directed the revisioner, the insurer, to pay compensation and recover it from the owner-driver, thereby imposing liability on the insurer despite the deliberate breach of policy terms by the insured. 4 5. Additionally, the Tribunal erred in awarding interest at 9% per annum, which is excessive and unsupported, as the claimant failed to establish a special circumstance warranting such a higher rate; the correct rate should be 6% per annum in accordance with the prevailing norms. Accordingly, the impugned award deserves to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the revisioner and submits that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law and does not warrant any interference. It is further contended that there is no necessity to remit the matter for further evidence, as no liability has been fastened upon the insurance company beyond the principle of “pay and recover.” The impugned order clearly directs the insurer to initially pay the compensation and subsequently recover the same from the owner-driver, and therefore, the revision petition is without merit and liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. Since liability has been established against the owner-driver of the offending vehicle, and the insurance company has been directed solely to pay the awarded amount and subsequently recover the same from the owner-driver, coupled with the fact that the amount involved is relatively modest, being Rs. 82,921/-, this Court does not 5 find it appropriate to exercise its revisional jurisdiction in the present matter. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is Dismissed at this stage. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena