1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 370 of 2025 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. … Applicant 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 ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :- Mr. Ashutosh Rathore, Advocate For Respondents:- Ms. Shalini Jangde, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 11.11.2025 1. Heard. 2. The instant review petition is being filed to recall the order dated 11/09/2025 marked as ANNEXURE-A/1 in CR No. 176/2024 passed by learned Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court. 3. The present appeal arises out of an application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for injuries sustained by Respondent No.1, which was adjudicated by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.). Upon evaluating the evidence and submissions, the learned Tribunal held that the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle had driven the vehicle in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, thereby exonerating the insurer of liability. Nevertheless, the Tribunal directed the Applicant–Insurance Company to first satisfy the award and thereafter recover the amount from the owner-cum-driver. Aggrieved, the Applicant preferred Civil Revision No. 176/2024, wherein interim protection was initially granted. However, vide order dated 11.09.2025, the learned Single Bench dismissed the Civil Revision, resulting in grave prejudice and irreparable loss to the Applicant. 4. Facts of the case are that 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 dated 3 16.11.2022, wherein he, while crossing the road on a Vespa Scooter with his wife, was hit by a motorcycle bearing No. CG 04 NV 1303 driven by Respondent No.2 (owner-cum-driver). During investigation it emerged that Respondent No.2 was driving the offending vehicle under the influence of alcohol and without a valid driving licence, and he remained ex parte throughout the proceedings. The Applicant-Insurance Company, having insured the offending vehicle, was permitted to contest the claim under Section 170 of the MV Act. After appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of Respondent No.2 and that he had violated the terms of the insurance policy; however, despite these findings, the Tribunal directed the Applicant to first satisfy the award of ₹82,921/- and thereafter recover the amount from the owner-cum-driver, vide award dated 29.07.2024. Aggrieved, the Applicant preferred Civil Revision No. 176/2024, in which interim relief was granted on 25.10.2024, but ultimately the Civil Revision was dismissed by order dated 11.09.2025, giving rise to the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 11.09.2025 suffers from patent illegality as the Tribunal’s award, affirmed by the Hon’ble Court, is contrary to the evidence on record and the statutory scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is urged that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the owner-cum-driver, who remained ex parte, was admittedly driving the offending vehicle under the influence of alcohol and without a valid driving licence, which constitutes a clear and fundamental breach of policy conditions under 4 Sections 3, 181, 185 and 150(2) of the Act, duly proved through the Investigating Officer and supported by the charge-sheet. Counsel contends that once such violation was established, the insurer could not have been saddled with liability, especially after the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, which has omitted the proviso forming the basis of the principle of “pay and recover”. It is argued that the Tribunal erred in directing the petitioner to first pay and then recover from the very person who is both the owner and the delinquent driver, and that the interest awarded at 9% is excessive and contrary to the law laid down in Smt. Shanta Ben v. National Power Transport (2019), where 6% was held to be the just rate of interest. Counsel further submits that in a connected matter arising from the same accident (MA(C) No. 2036/2024), this Hon’ble Court has granted interim relief, and the dismissal of the present revision causes serious prejudice to the petitioner. Accordingly, it is prayed that the order under review be recalled and the petitioner be fully exonerated of liability. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the petition and submits that the review sought is wholly misconceived and is an attempt to re-argue the matter on merits, which is impermissible in law. It is argued that the Tribunal had rightly assessed the evidence and awarded just compensation, and the Hon’ble Court, after due consideration, correctly dismissed the revision. Counsel submits that the principle of “pay and recovery” continues to be applied consistently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts to protect innocent third-party victims, irrespective of the Motor Vehicles 5 (Amendment) Act, 2019, particularly where the accident and the claim are third-party in nature. It is further contended that breach of policy conditions such as driving without licence or under intoxication may give the insurer the right to recover, but does not absolve it of the statutory liability to pay the award to the injured third party. Counsel submits that the petitioner insurer cannot escape liability merely because the owner- cum-driver was negligent, and that the claimant cannot be left remediless due to alleged breaches between the insured and insurer. It is argued that the interest awarded at 9% is neither excessive nor contrary to settled principles, as the Tribunal has discretion to grant a reasonable rate of interest considering inflation and delay in compensation. Counsel further submits that the pendency or interim order in another connected case has no bearing on the legality of the present order. Hence, no error apparent on the face of the record is made out, and the review petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Upon perusal of record, it seems that there is no ground whatsoever to review the order darted 11.09.2025 passed in CR No. 176/2024 under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. The grounds urged by the Applicant are, in substance, an attempt to seek reconsideration on merits, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction. This Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction in Civil Revision No. 176/2024, has already examined the entire factual matrix, the 6 Tribunal’s findings, and the contentions advanced by the insurer. 9. The said Civil Revision was dismissed after recording detailed reasons, particularly in paragraph 8 of the judgment, which reads as under:- “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 find it appropriate to exercise its revisional jurisdiction in the present matter. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is Dismissed at this stage.” 10. This Court has independently examined the record of the revision as well as the grounds urged in the present review petition. The petitioner has not demonstrated any error apparent on the face of the record, nor any discovery of new or important evidence which, despite due diligence, could not be produced earlier. The review petition merely re-asserts the very same arguments that were advanced and duly considered in the earlier proceedings. 11. It is well-settled that a review cannot be entertained as an appeal in disguise, nor can it be invoked to re-argue or re-appreciate evidence. The scope of review is extremely limited, confined only to correcting patent errors or mistakes of the Court which are self-evident. No such error has been demonstrated here. 7 12. Consequently, the review petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost(s). sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha