1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 291 of 2025 1 - Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Third Floor, Chawla Complex Devendra Nagar Road, Sai Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Tata Trailor No. C.G./07/e/8183) (Non-Applicant No. 03) ... Applicant versus 1 - Manjeet Ram Maravi S/o Dhansai Maravi Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Jamdih, Police Station Lundra (Dhaurpur), District - Surguja Chhattisgarh (Claimant) 2 - Ranjeet Kumar Thakur S/o Govind Thakur Aged About 35 Years R/o Jargarh, Police Station Gadhwa, District - Gadhwa (Jharkhand) (Driver Of Tata Trailor No. C.G./07/e/8183) 3 - M/s Naveen Agro Industries Partner Vinod Kumar Malik S/o Mathura Prasad, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Ajirama Manendragarh Road Ambikapur, Police Station Gandhinagar, District - Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Tata Trailor No. C.G./07/e/8183) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :- Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent :- None. VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 17.11.2025 1. The present revision petition has been filed being aggrieved by the award dated 31.07.2025 passed by the learned 5th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 232/2022 titled “Manjeet Ram Maravi vs. Ranjeet Kumar Thakur and others”. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, That, the claimant/respondent No.1 filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for injuries sustained in an accident dated 08.06.2022, alleging that while he was working as a labourer in a road construction project, respondent No.2, the driver of a trailer vehicle, negligently loaded a road roller and paver machine, causing both machines to fall from the trailer and hit several labourers including the claimant, resulting in serious injuries to his right knee, left shoulder, chest and spine, for which he was treated first at District Hospital Balrampur and thereafter referred to Medical College Ambikapur; a criminal case under Sections 279 and 337 IPC was registered as Crime No.118/2022 at Police Station Balrampur. It was further pleaded that the claimant was 31 years of age and earning Rs.2,64,000/- per annum from labour work, agriculture and vegetable production, and claimed Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation. The applicant– 3 insurance company denied the allegations, contending that as per the documents of Crime No.118/2022, the claimant and the deceased were travelling unauthorisedly in goods vehicle CG-07- E-8183, which overturned due to loss of control; that no premium was charged for occupants of the goods vehicle, the seating capacity was only two, the road roller and paver machine were not insured, the vehicle lacked valid permit and fitness, and respondent No.2 did not possess a valid driving licence, amounting to policy violations. After evidence, the learned Tribunal, without properly appreciating the material on record, awarded Rs.53,000/- as compensation, giving rise to the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant Insurance Company submits that the impugned award is patently erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record and unsustainable in law, as the learned Tribunal has wrongly fastened liability on the applicant despite clear and uncontested material showing fundamental breaches of policy conditions. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that the claimant was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle whose seating capacity, as per the policy and Registration Certificate, was only 2+1=3, whereas more than nine persons were travelling in it at the time of the accident, amounting to a blatant and fundamental violation of policy terms. The Tribunal further erred in holding that the applicant did not prove breach of policy, although the vehicle was being plied without valid permit, 4 without fitness certificate and was being driven by an unlicensed driver. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged on the next day of the accident without disclosure of the vehicle number and was registered against an unknown vehicle, which clearly casts doubt on the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle; yet the Tribunal ignored this material inconsistency. The learned Tribunal also failed to properly appreciate the evidence and documents produced by the applicant and proceeded on conjectures and surmises, resulting in a perverse finding holding the insurer liable to pay compensation. Hence, the impugned award deserves to be set aside. 4. None appears for the respondent. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record. 6. Upon perusal of the record and in consideration of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the Court finds no sufficient grounds to interfere with the impugned award. The revision petition filed by the insurance company is therefore dismissed, with the Court noting that this dismissal pertains solely to the present petition and shall not affect any other connected matters arising in relation to the death of a person involved in the accident. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha