1 2025:CGHC:57349 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 299 of 2025 Manager (Wrongly Mentioned Word Insurance Instead Of Assurance) The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Bhilai, 1st Floor, Chouhan Estate G.E. Road, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Chandni Diwakar W/o Anil Diwakar Aged About 28 Years R/o House No. 44, Ward No. 17, Village Kurda, Post Tipni, Tahsil Thankhamhriya, P.S. Thankhamhriya, District Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - Kriparam Matre S/o Guhadas Matre Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Jurlakala, P.S. Khairagarh, District - Khairagarh - Chhuikhadan - Gandai (C.G.) 3 - Jeevanlal Deshlahre S/o Radhelal Deshlahre Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Kashitola, Tahsil Gandai, District Khairagarh - Chhuikhadan - Gandai (C.G.) 4 - Namitab Jain R/o House No. 25, Ward No. 35, Gurughasidas Ward, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil, P.S. And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Non-applicants (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 25.11.2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.02/2025, application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 8 days in filing the civil revision. 2. On due consideration the grounds mentioned in the application (I.A. No.02/2025), the same is allowed. Delay in filing the civil revision is hereby condoned. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.11.26 14:04:40 +0530 2 3. The applicant has filed this civil revision with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant civil revision by quashing the liability which is fastened upon applicant Insurance Company by the Learned Tribunal and applicant Insurance Company may kindly be exonerated from the liability, in the interest of justice.” 4. The applicant/Insurance Company has filed this civil revision being aggrieved with the award dated 22.07.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Bemetara, (C.G.) (in short “Claims Tribunal”) in MACT No.121/2024 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. 5. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that on 19.06.2024, the present non-applicant No.1, along with her husband and two sons, was travelling on a Platina Motorcycle bearing No. CG-25L-1965. When they reached near Varsha Cycle Shop, their motorcycle was allegedly dashed by a Hyva Truck bearing No. CG-08Y-8433 (the offending vehicle), which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, the present non-applicant No.2, namely Kriparam Matre. As a result of the said accident, injured Chandni Diwakar sustained grievous injuries on her thigh, elbow, both legs due to ligament rupture, and other parts of the body. She was initially taken to CHC Thankhamariya and thereafter shifted to Radians Hospital and Research Centre, Kawardha, where she remained under treatment from 19.06.2024 to 28.06.2024. In respect of the incident, Crime No.101/2024 under Sections 279, 337 and 304 Part A IPC was registered at Police Station 3 Thankhamariya against non-applicant No.2, and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed. At the time of accident, the injured was stated to be earning Rs.25,000/- per month as a labourer. The non-applicant No.1 (injured) thereafter filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming total compensation of Rs.24,50,000/- against the driver, previous owner, present owner, and the insurer (the present applicant). 6. Upon service of notice, the driver and the new owner of the offending vehicle filed a joint written statement denying rash and negligent driving and pleading that the vehicle was being operated with all valid and effective vehicular documents. They further pleaded that since the vehicle was duly insured with the present applicant–Insurance Company, any liability arising therefrom may be satisfied by the insurer. The non-applicant No.4 (previous owner) submitted that he had already sold the offending vehicle on 28.03.2024 to non-applicant No.3, namely Jeevanlal Deshlahre, much prior to the accident, and therefore he was not liable. The present applicant–Insurance Company filed its written statement denying the claimant’s allegations and further contending that the offending vehicle was being driven without a valid and effective driving licence, permit and fitness, resulting in breach of policy conditions, due to which the insurer cannot be saddled with liability. 7. Based on the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed five issues, and after recording evidence of the parties, passed the impugned award, whereby compensation of Rs.96,483/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim i.e., 27.08.2024, was awarded jointly 4 and severally against the driver, owner and insurer, directing that the amount be deposited within 30 days from the date of award. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned award is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of the case, and therefore deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed a manifest error of law in fastening liability upon the present applicant–Insurance Company despite clear and admitted material to the contrary. It is contended that the learned Tribunal has completely overlooked the undisputed position that on the date of accident i.e., 19.06.2024, the actual owner of the offending vehicle was non-applicant No.3, namely Jeevanlal Deshlahre, who had already purchased the vehicle on 28.03.2024, much prior to the alleged incident. The sale agreement of the offending vehicle, duly exhibited as NA-04, was not considered in its correct perspective, leading to a perverse finding. 9. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the categorical statement of the previous owner (non-applicant No.4) made on oath, wherein he stated that after selling the offending vehicle, he had surrendered the existing permit on 02.04.2024, which was valid from 01.08.2022 to 31.08.2027. This vital piece of evidence, which clearly established that the earlier permit ceased to exist prior to the accident, has been ignored without any lawful justification. It is further urged that the purchaser, i.e., non-applicant No.3, had applied for a fresh permit after the sale, and the new permit was issued only for the period from 21.06.2024 to 20.06.2029. Thus, on the date of accident (19.06.2024), admittedly no valid and effective permit was in 5 force. The statement on oath of Namitab Jain clearly proves that the offending vehicle was being plied on a public place without a valid and effective permit, which constitutes a clear breach of the policy conditions. However, the learned Tribunal has failed to draw the necessary inference from this admitted factual position. 10. Learned counsel submits that the certified copies of the statements of Chandni Diwakar (AW-1) and Sachin Kumar Mehara (NAW-1), filed as Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-3, further corroborate the case of the applicant. Despite such oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has erroneously held that the Insurance Company failed to prove absence of a valid permit. It is argued that the Tribunal ought to have recorded a positive finding on Issue No.4 and exonerated the applicant from liability. It is therefore submitted that the finding fastening liability upon the applicant-Insurance Company is patently illegal, perverse and against the settled principles of law. Since the total compensation awarded is Rs.96,483/-, and in view of the statutory bar under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a regular appeal is not maintainable where the award amount is up to Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence, the impugned award dated 22.07.2025 is liable to be set aside. 11. 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. 12. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant and upon careful perusal of the impugned award as well as the entire record of the present civil revision, this Court is of the considered view that no ground is made out warranting interference in 6 exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The learned Claims Tribunal has appreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed before it and has recorded findings which are neither perverse nor contrary to law. The plea advanced by the applicant–Insurance Company with respect to non-existence of a valid permit on the date of accident has already been examined by the Tribunal on the basis of the available material, and the conclusions reached cannot be said to be illegal or unsustainable. 13. It is further to be noted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal amounts to only Rs.96,483/-, which is evidently a very meagre and modest amount considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the period of hospitalization, and the medical treatment undergone by her. The Tribunal has assessed compensation strictly in accordance with the settled principles governing motor accident claims, and no excessive or unjust enrichment has been granted to the claimant. On the contrary, the amount awarded appears to be on the lower side, and therefore the applicant cannot claim to be prejudiced in any manner. 14. In revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not expected to re-appreciate evidence as if sitting in appeal, unless the findings of the Tribunal are demonstrated to be patently erroneous or resulting in miscarriage of justice. The applicant has failed to satisfy this Court that the impugned award suffers from any jurisdictional error, material irregularity, or perversity warranting interference. 7 15. Consequently, finding no merit in the present civil revision, the same stands dismissed. The impugned award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 16. 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. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh