1 2025:CGHC:57350 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 300 of 2025 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, 5th Floor, Skypark, Opposite Bhantai Nursing Home, Canal Road Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Bhuwan Singh S/o Ram Bilas Singh, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Koteya Mahadevpara, P.S. Jhilmili, District Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Dharmu Singh Gond S/o Vishnu, Aged About 30 Years R/o House No. 93 Schoolpara Sonpur Kala, P.S. Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Non-applicants (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 25.11.2025 1 Heard Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. 2 The applicant has filed this civil revision with the following prayer:- “It, is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant Civil YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.11.26 14:04:40 +0530 2 Revision and set aside the impugned award dated 04/09/2025 passed by the Fifth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.21/2024 between 'Bhuwan Singh vs. Dharmu Singh Gond and another', in the interest of justice.” 3 The applicant/Insurance Company has filed this civil revision being aggrieved with the award dated 04.09.2025 passed by the Fifth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) (in short “Claims Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.21/2024 whereby the learned Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim application filed by the claimant and fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Insurance Company by applying the principle of pay and recover. 4 Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the present matter arises out of a motor accident in which two separate claim cases, were filed. In the connected claim case compensation exceeding Rs.19,00,000/- has been awarded, which has been independently challenged by the applicant in a separate case. The present proceedings relate to Claim Case No.21/2024, wherein respondent No.1/claimant, while travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-15-DE-3099, was allegedly injured when another motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-15-DU- 3078, ridden by deceased Muneshwar Singh, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed into the claimant’s motorcycle. Due to the said accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 3 seeking compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-. Respondent No.2, the owner/rider of the offending motorcycle, remained ex parte. The Insurance Company filed its written statement denying liability and inter alia pleaded that the deceased rider did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, that there was contributory negligence, and that there was a statutory breach of policy conditions. The learned Tribunal, however, passed the impugned award dated 04.09.2025 fastening liability upon the applicant, giving rise to the present revision. 5 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed a grave legal error in directing the insurer to “pay and recover,” as recorded in paragraph 36 of the impugned award, particularly when the Tribunal itself has held that non-applicant No.2, the owner/driver, did not possess a valid driving licence and was charge-sheeted under Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is urged that the accident occurred on 28.08.2023, i.e., after the amendment of the MV Act came into force, and under the amended provisions, no such direction for pay and recover can legally be issued. 6 Reliance placed by the Tribunal on the principle of pay and recover is further assailed in view of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in ICICI Lombard vs. Arti Devi, wherein similar directions have been questioned, and the said judgment is presently under challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 4 SLP (C) No.8269/2025 and SLP (C) No.8501/2025, wherein interim relief has already been granted. It is next contended that the accident was a case of head-on collision between two motorcycles, and the oral and documentary evidence on record clearly demonstrates contributory negligence on the part of the deceased to the extent of at least 50%. As such the instant revision be allowed and the impugned award deserves to be set aside. 7 I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned award as well as the material available on record in the present civil revision. 8 Having considered the rival submissions advanced at the Bar, carefully perused the impugned award and examined the entire record of the present civil revision, this Court is of the firm opinion that no jurisdictional error, perversity or infirmity has been committed by the learned Claims Tribunal so as to justify interference in revisional jurisdiction. 9 The scope of interference in a civil revision is narrow and limited, and unless the findings are shown to be manifestly arbitrary or contrary to law, this Court would be slow in disturbing the conclusions arrived at by the fact-finding Tribunal. 10 In the present case, the applicant–Insurance Company has not been able to demonstrate that the Tribunal’s conclusions suffer 5 from any illegality or material irregularity. The assessment of compensation has been made strictly on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, and the quantification made by the Tribunal is not only reasonable but in fact extremely modest. The award of merely Rs.7,820/- as compensation to the claimant is a meagre amount, and in no manner can it be said to be excessive or disproportionate so as to warrant interference by this Court. 11 This Court finds that the Tribunal has exercised its discretion judiciously and applied the settled principles of law while determining the entitlement of the claimant. No ground is made out to unsettle the well-reasoned findings recorded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the civil revision fails and is dismissed. 12 It is further clarified that this order shall not affect any other case or proceeding arising out of the same accident, which shall be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/-- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh