1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 327 of 2025 1 - Magma General Insurance Company Limited (Earlier Magma Hdi) Through Branch Manager, Branch Office At Near Rajendra Nagar, Chowk Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Divisional Office At Pujari Chambers, A- Block First Floor, Dharam Nagar, Pachpedi Naka Chowk District- Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer) ... Applicant versus 1 - Laxmin Ratre W/o Radhe Lal Ratre Aged About 50 Years R/o 666, Sidar Gali, Dhimrapur, Raigarh, District- Sarangarh (C.G.) Present Address Behind Old Water Tank, Torwa Police Station Torwa, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Claimant/ Applicant ) 2 - Sushil Kumar Tondon S/o Mohan Lal Tondon Aged About 36 Years R/o House No. 119, Village Jamgahan Satnami Paara, Police Station Bhatgaon, Tehsil Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) (Owner/ Non- Applicant No. 1) 3 - Dilchand Sahu S/o Saheb Lal Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Mudpaar, Police Station Hasaud, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) (Driver/ Non - Applicant No. 3) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 11/12/2025 1. The applicant has preferred the present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being aggrieved by the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 560 of 2024. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 2. Facts of the case, as per the pleadings, are that the claim petition was instituted under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 26,00,000 for the permanent disability allegedly suffered in a road accident that occurred on 17.12.2023. According to the admitted facts, the vehicle involved in the accident, a truck bearing registration No. CG-22-G-8662, was owned by Non-Applicant No.1, insured with Non-Applicant No.2 (the present Appellant–Insurance Company), and driven by Non-Applicant No.3 at the relevant time. As narrated in the claim petition, on 17.12.2023 Laxmine Ratre, was returning to her village Churela from Raipur along with her relatives in a car when, near village Hardi Mod, the aforesaid truck, driven rashly and negligently by its driver, forcefully collided with the car, causing serious injuries to the applicant and other occupants; an FIR was lodged at Police Station Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, where Crime No. 672/2023 under Sections 279 and 337 IPC was registered. The applicant further claimed that she was 50 years old, engaged in agricultural and labour work, earning Rs. 15,000 per month, but due to the severe injuries sustained in the accident she became permanently disabled and incapable of continuing her work; she therefore asserted that the owner, driver, and insurer of Truck No. CG-22-Z-8662 were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs. 27,00,000 under various heads. Non-Applicants No.1 and 3 remained ex parte during evidence, though Non-Applicant No.3 filed a reply denying negligence and 3 alleging that a false case was registered against him, while admitting ownership and insurance of the vehicle and stating that he held a valid driving licence. 3. The Appellant–Insurance Company filed its written statement denying all allegations except the admitted facts and contended that neither the owner nor the insured informed the company about the accident, that essential vehicle documents such as the RC, permit, fitness certificate, insurance policy, and driving licence were not produced or verified, and that the driver did not possess a valid licence or requisite permits and fitness at the time of the accident; it further alleged that the driver was under the influence of alcohol, amounting to a violation of policy terms, and also raised objections regarding non-joinder of necessary parties, including the owner, driver, and insurer of the applicant’s car, and contributory negligence of both vehicles. 4. After recording evidence and hearing parties, the learned Claims Tribunal allowed the claim and awarded compensation of Rs. 24,560 with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, fastening liability upon the Appellant–Insurance Company. The present appeal challenges the award on the grounds that the Tribunal failed to appreciate crucial documentary evidence, including the Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC) of Non- Applicant No.3, which recorded “smell of alcohol from breath” and supported the police papers showing addition of Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, thereby establishing a fundamental breach 4 of policy conditions; despite this material, the Tribunal erroneously held that no policy violation was proved. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned award, insofar as it fastens liability upon the present Appellant– Insurance Company, is patently illegal, perverse, and contrary to the settled principles of law, as the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the material evidence and the law governing breach of policy conditions. It is urged that the quantum of compensation as well as the rate of interest awarded for the death of the deceased under various heads is excessively high, and the Tribunal has further erred in granting interest on future prospects, which is completely unwarranted. The counsel contends that the Tribunal has completely overlooked the crucial fact reflected in the Medico- Legal Certificate (MLC) of Non-Applicant No.03, wherein it is clearly recorded that there was a “smell of alcohol from breath”, and the police documents also demonstrate that Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act was added, thereby establishing that the driver was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. It is argued that driving a commercial heavy vehicle under the influence of alcohol constitutes a fundamental breach of policy conditions, and despite the existence of such documentary evidence, including the relevant portion of the challan (Annexure A-4), the Tribunal erroneously held that no violation of policy conditions was proved and mechanically imposed liability upon the Appellant. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble 5 Supreme Court in IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pearl Beverages Ltd., wherein it has been held that even in the absence of a breath analyzer test, consumption of alcohol can be inferred from surrounding circumstances such as the MLC and the manner of driving, and that driving under the influence constitutes a breach of policy conditions exonerating the insurer. The counsel also places reliance on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mubarak Khan vs. Sukko Bai & Others (MA No. 1333/2023), wherein it has been held that when the MLC records smell of alcohol from the driver’s breath and the accident is caused due to his rash driving, the insurer is entitled to exoneration; hence, the Tribunal’s finding to the contrary is contrary to binding precedents and is therefore unsustainable. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding interest @ 9% per annum, which is on the higher side and contrary to the spirit of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure that provides for reasonable interest, generally not exceeding 6% unless special circumstances exist; the Motor Vehicles Act also does not mandate any fixed rate of interest, and therefore the Tribunal ought to have taken into account the prevailing bank rates and market lending rates. The counsel submits that the Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate and consider the specific grounds raised by the Appellant, and therefore the award, insofar as it concerns the Appellant, is liable to be set aside. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and upon 6 perusal of the impugned award as well as the documents placed on record, this Court finds that the present civil revision has been preferred against an award whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 24,560/- with interest @ 9% per annum in favour of the claimant. 7. The challenge raised by the applicant–Insurance Company pertains primarily to the alleged breach of policy conditions and the finding of liability. However, it is an undisputed fact that the amount involved in the present revision is meagre, and the scope of interference under Section 115 of the CPC is limited to jurisdictional errors or material irregularity causing grave injustice. 8. Upon due consideration, this Court is of the view that even if the grounds urged by the applicant may merit consideration in an appropriate proceeding, no case is made out for interference in revisional jurisdiction, particularly when the compensation awarded is minimal and does not result in any substantial miscarriage of justice warranting exercise of supervisory powers. In the present case, the findings of the Tribunal do not reflect any jurisdictional infirmity or perversity of such magnitude that would justify interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the present civil revision petition stands dismissed, solely on the ground that the amount involved is too meagre to warrant interference under Section 115 CPC. However, it is clarified that the dismissal of this revision petition shall not affect or prejudice any other pending appeal, petition, or revision filed by 7 the Insurance Company on similar issues, nor shall this order be treated as a precedent on merits regarding policy violation, breach of conditions, or liability. All such issues are kept open to be adjudicated independently in appropriate proceedings. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Shayna