1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 326 of 2025 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Office Address G.E. Road, Parmanand Bhawan, Infront Of Rajendra Park, Durg, District Durg C.G. (Policy No. 214500/31/2024/2093)(Period Of Insurance Dated 23.12.2023 To 22.12.2024) (Insurer Of Vehicle Sumo No. C G-04-Lt-3256) ... Applicant versus 1 - Balkrishna Sahu S/o Deendayal Sahu Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Ward No. 01, Borhra, Dhaneli, Tahsil Gurur, District Balod C.G. 2 - Sheetal Giri @ Suraj @ Chhotu Goswami S/o Milan Giri Goswami Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Ward No. 01, Borhra, Dhaneli, Tahsil Gurur, District Balod C.G.(Driver Of Vehicle Sumo No. C G- 04- L T- 3256) 3 - Omprakash Yadav S/o Ratnu Ram Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Tikrapara, Ward No. 13, Gurur, District Balod C.G. (Owner Of Vehicle Sumo No. C G- 04- L T- 3256) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Raj Awasthi, 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 25.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 189 of 2024. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 2. Facts of the case, as per the pleadings, are that on 04.05.2024, the non-applicant No.1/claimant was travelling along with his friends, Ashutosh Sahu and Ailan Sahu, in a Sumo vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-04-LT-3258 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle). When they reached Mandir Chowk, Village Dhaneli, near the house of Tuman Lal Sahu, the non-applicant No.2, who was driving the offending vehicle, allegedly drove it in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly dashed the vehicle into the house situated on the roadside. Due to the forceful impact, the non-applicant No.1 sustained multiple injuries all over his body. Immediately after the accident, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Bathena, where he remained under treatment from 04.05.2024 to 07.05.2024. 3. In connection with the incident, FIR No. 112/2024 was registered for offences under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the IPC against the non-applicant No.2, who was the driver of the offending vehicle, and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent court. It was further pleaded that at the time of the accident, the non-applicant No.1 was 19 years old and was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month as a labourer. On account of the injuries suffered in the accident, he filed a claim petition under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs. 9,50,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the driver, owner, and insurer (present applicant) of the offending vehicle. 3 4. Upon receipt of notice, the driver filed his written statement denying that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. He further pleaded that he was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, and since the offending vehicle was duly insured with the applicant-Insurance Company, the liability to pay compensation, if any, was that of the insurer. The owner of the offending vehicle also filed his written statement supporting the stand taken by the driver and asserting that the vehicle was validly insured and lawfully driven at the relevant time. The present applicant-Insurance Company filed its written statement challenging the very maintainability of the claim petition filed under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Learned Tribunal framed five issues and proceeded to record evidence. After evaluating the evidence, the Tribunal passed the impugned award, thereby granting total compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., 25.09.2024. The liability was fastened jointly and severally upon the driver, owner, and the Insurance Company; however, the applicant-Insurance Company was directed to deposit the awarded amount within 30 days. Aggrieved by the said award, the applicant-Insurance Company has preferred the present civil revision. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is wholly contrary to 4 the facts, law, and circumstances of the case, and therefore deserves to be set aside. It is contended that the Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the legal foundation of the claim petition filed under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and has mechanically proceeded to award compensation without examining the crucial question of maintainability. It is further urged that the learned Tribunal committed a grave error of law in not framing a separate and specific issue regarding the maintainability of the claim petition under Section 164 of the M.V. Act, despite the categorical objection raised by the applicant in its written statement. The applicant had clearly pleaded that the claim under Section 164 was not maintainable because the pleadings of the claimant themselves alleged that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by non- applicant No.2. Once negligence was specifically pleaded and attributed to the driver, the proper remedy lay under Section 166 of the M.V. Act and not under Section 164, which is a no-fault provision. The learned Tribunal, however, ignored this vital legal distinction and entertained the petition contrary to the statutory scheme. The learned counsel for applicant further submits that the Tribunal has fallen into serious error by returning a positive finding of negligence on Issue No.1, yet proceeding with the claim under Section 164. Such an approach is self-contradictory and legally impermissible. Section 164 provides for fixed compensation irrespective of fault, whereas once negligence is 5 established, the remedy lies under Section 166. Therefore, on the basis of the claimant’s own pleadings and the documents filed, the instant claim petition was not maintainable under Section 164 and ought to have been dismissed on this ground alone. It is additionally contended that the claimant failed to examine the treating doctor before the Tribunal. In the absence of medical evidence from the treating doctor, the injuries alleged and the extent thereof remain unsubstantiated. The Tribunal, despite this glaring deficiency, has proceeded to award compensation, which amounts to a serious miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim for want of proper proof of injuries and disability. The learned counsel submits that although the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 25,000/-, which is below the threshold of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the applicant has rightly preferred the present civil revision since, by virtue of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a regular appeal is not maintainable when the award amount is less than Rs. 1,00,000/-. Accordingly, this civil revision challenging the legality and propriety of the final award dated 25.06.2025 has been filed. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is that this Court may be pleased to allow the present civil revision, quash the impugned award, and exonerate the applicant–Insurance Company from any liability, in the interest of justice. 6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the applicant–Insurance Company and after perusal of the impugned award as well as the documents placed on record, it is evident that the present revision 6 has been preferred against an award of Rs. 25,000/- passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 7. The core contention raised in the revision relates to the maintainability of a claim petition filed under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act despite the claimant having pleaded negligence, and also regarding the absence of medical evidence from the treating doctor. However, a careful examination of the record shows that the Tribunal has awarded a fixed and meagre amount of Rs. 25,000/-, along with interest @ 6% per annum. The compensation awarded is nominal and falls well within the statutory scheme of Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Even assuming that certain legal objections were available to the Insurance Company, the quantum involved is too insignificant to justify interference in revisional jurisdiction, which is to be exercised only in cases of patent illegality or jurisdictional error. No such jurisdictional error or perversity is demonstrated in the impugned order. The Tribunal has considered the basic facts, the occurrence of the accident, the injuries sustained, and the registration of FIR, and has applied the statutory no-fault compensation provision. The applicant has failed to show that the impugned order suffers from any gross irregularity warranting revisional interference under Section 115 CPC. The award is supported by material on record and does not call for any modification. 8. In view of the above discussion, and particularly considering that 7 the amount awarded in the revision is meagre, this Court finds no justification for exercising its revisional powers under Section 115 CPC. 9. Accordingly, the present civil revision petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order will not affect or prejudice any other petition filed by the Insurance Company in respect of any other award or proceedings pending before this Court or any other competent forum. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Shayna