1 2025:CGHC:55933 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 290 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. Cg/07/e/8183). ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Ranmohan Maravi S/o Bagar Maravi Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Jamdih, P.S. Lundra, Tehsil Lundra (Dhaurpur), Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ranjeet Kumar Thakur S/o Govind Thakur Aged About 35 Years R/o Jargarh, P.S. Gadhwa, Distt. Gadhwa (Jharkhand). (Driver Of Tata Trailor No. Cg/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, P.S. Gandhinagar, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Tata Trailor No. Cg/07/e/8183). ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/11/2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following reliefs:- “It is most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court be kind enough to set aside the impugned award (Annexure A-1) and the applicant may kindly be exonerated from paying the compensation or alternatively the amount of compensation may be reduced suitably.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the claimants/respondent No. 1 filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in an accident that occurred on 08.06.2022. It was pleaded that on the date of the accident, the applicant was working as a labourer on a road construction project along with his companion, when Respondent No. 2, the driver of a trailer vehicle, negligently loaded a road roller and a paver machine, causing both machines to fall from the vehicle and strike the labourers working at the site, including the applicant, resulting in serious internal injuries to his right knee, left shoulder, chest, and spine. The applicant was given first aid at the District Hospital, Balrampur, and owing to the severity of the injuries, he was referred to the Medical College, Ambikapur, for further treatment. A criminal case under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC was 3 registered as Crime No. 118/2022 at Police Station Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, and a charge sheet was filed. It was further pleaded that at the time of the accident, the claimant/respondent No. 1 was 46 years old and earning Rs. 2,64,000/- per annum from labour work, agriculture, and vegetable cultivation, and he claimed compensation of Rs. 20,74,000/- under various heads. Notices were issued, and the present applicant filed a written statement denying the allegations, contending that as per the autopsy application related to Crime No. 118/2022, the deceased and respondent No. 1 were travelling unauthorizedly in a goods vehicle bearing registration No. CG-07-E-8183, which lost control and overturned; that no premium had been paid for carriage of occupants in the insured goods vehicle whose seating capacity was only two; that the road roller and paver machine were not insured with the appellant company; that the trailer vehicle was insured only under an Act Only policy in the name of M/s Naveen Agro Industries valid until 28.05.2023; that the vehicle was being operated without the requisite permit and fitness certificate; and that Respondent No. 2 did not possess a valid driving licence, resulting in violation of the terms of the insurance policy, making the insurer not liable to pay compensation. The parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings, yet the learned Tribunal, without properly appreciating the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded compensation of Rs. 53,000/-, necessitating the present revision. 4 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned award passed by the Learned Tribunal is patently erroneous, contrary to the facts and evidence on record, and bad in law, inasmuch as the Tribunal committed a serious error in fastening the liability upon the applicant–Insurance Company without properly appreciating the material available on record. He further submits that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the applicant failed to prove the breach of policy conditions, despite clear evidence showing that the injured was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle, which is impermissible under the policy. He further submits that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the FIR was lodged on the next day of the incident and that the vehicle number was not disclosed therein, thereby creating serious doubt regarding the involvement of the alleged vehicle. He further submits that the evidence produced by the applicant clearly established that the seating capacity of the offending vehicle, as per the insurance policy and Registration Certificate, was only 2+1 (3 persons), whereas more than nine persons were travelling in the vehicle at the time of the accident, amounting to a fundamental breach of the policy conditions, absolving the applicant of liability. He further submits that the award is perverse, based on conjectures and surmises, and therefore liable to be set aside, and the applicant seeks liberty to raise additional grounds at the time of hearing with the permission of this Hon’ble Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the 5 material available on record. 5. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and upon a thorough examination of the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, no illegality, perversity, or material irregularity is found in the impugned award so as to warrant interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The Tribunal has duly and properly appreciated the evidence adduced by both parties and has rightly held the applicant–Insurance Company liable to pay compensation, as the pleas regarding breach of policy conditions and the objections relating to the manner of the accident, delayed FIR, seating capacity, and alleged gratuitous passengers were neither satisfactorily proved nor sufficient to dislodge the claimant’s case. The conclusions reached by the Tribunal are based on sound reasoning and a proper appreciation of the material available on record. 6. Accordingly, the revision petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat