1 2026:CGHC:5977 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 37 of 2026 United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office- Gurukripa Tower, Vyapar Vihar Road, P.S.- Civil Lines, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Khik Bai Shriwas W/o Goverdhan Shriwas Aged About 63 Years R/o Village- Ranigaon, P.S.- Ratanpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Anand Kumar Shukla S/o Prem Shankar Shukla Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Bharra, Post- Bhathali, P.S.- Nawagarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicants CR No. 38 of 2026 United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Gurukripa Tower, Vyapar Vihar Road, P.S. Civil Lines, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Radha Bai W/o Late Kriparam Aged About 73 Years R/o Village Ranigaon, P.S. Ratanpur, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Anand Kumar Shukla S/o Prem Shankar Shukla Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Bharra, Post - Bhathali, P.S. Nawagarh, Distt. Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicants CR No. 39 of 2026 United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Gurukripa Tower, Vyapar Vihar Road P.S. Civil Lines, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Shivratan Shriwas S/o Tiharu Ram Shriwas Aged About 72 Years R/o Village Ranigaon P.S. Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.02.05 18:50:10 +0530 2 2 - Anad Kumar Shukla S/o Prem Shankar Shukla Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Bharra, Post Bhathali P.S. Nawagarh District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Non-Applicants CR No. 40 of 2026 United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office- Gurukripa Tower, Vyapar Vihar Road, P.S. Civil- Lines Tahsil- And Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Jagmati Dhanwar W/o Manglu Dhanwar Aged About 43 Years R/o Village- Ranigaon, P.S. Ratanpur, Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Anand Kumar Shukla S/o Prem Shankar Shukla Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Bharra, Post- Bhathali, P.S. Nawagarh Distt- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Non-Applicants CR No. 41 of 2026 United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office- Gurukripa Tower, Vyapar Vihar Road, P.S.- Civil Lines, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Sanjana Vaishnav D/o Purshottam Vaishnav Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Ranigaon, P.S.- Ratanpur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Anand Kumar Shukla S/o Prem Shankar Shukla Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Bharra, Post- Bhathali, P.S.- Nawagarh, Distt. Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Non-Applicants CR No. 42 of 2026 United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office- Gurukripa Tower, Vyapar Vihar, Road, P.S. Civil Lines Tahsil And Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Chameli Bai Shriwas W/o Shivratan Shriwas Aged About 68 Years R/o Village- Ranigaon, P.S. Ratanpur Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Anand Kumar Shukla S/o Prem Shankar Shukla Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Bharra, Post- Bhathali P.S. Nawagarhi Distt- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Non-Applicants 3 CR No. 43 of 2026 United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office- Gurukripa Tower, Vyapar Vihar Road, P.S.- Civil Lines, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur C.G. ... Applicant versus 1 - Narad Prasad Kashyap S/o Bhayaram Kashyap Aged About 83 Years R/o Village- Ranigaon, P.S. Ratanpur, Distt.- Bilaspur C.G. 2 - Anand Kumar Shukla S/o Prem Shankar Shukla Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Bharra, Post- Bhathali, P.S. Nawagarh, Distt. Janjgir- Champa C.G. ... Non-Applicants CR No. 45 of 2026 United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office- Gurukripa Tower, Vyapar Vihar Road, P.S.- Civil Lines, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Bindia Bai Vaishnav W/o Purshottam Vaishnavlate Jhingut Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Ranigaon, P.S.- Ratanpur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Anand Kumar Shukla S/o Prem Shankar Shukla Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Bharra, Post- Bhathali, P.S.- Nawagarh, Distt. Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Non-Applicants CR No. 46 of 2026 United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office - Gurukripa Tower, Vyapar Vihar Road, P.S. Civil Lines, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Bhuri Bai W/o Late Jhingut Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Ranigaon, P.S. Ratanpur, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Anand Kumar Shukla S/o Prem Shankar Shukla Aged About 39 Years R/o Village - Bharra, Post - Bhathali, P.S. Nawagarh, Distt. Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicants (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate 4 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 03.02.2026 1. Heard on I.A. No.02, applications for condonation of delay in preferring of present civil revisions. 2. On due consideration the grounds mentioned in the applications (I.A. No.02), the same are allowed. Delay in filing the present civil revisions are hereby condoned. 3. All the aforesaid civil revisions have been filed by the United India Insurance Company, the insurer of the bus bearing registration No. CG-11/DB/1822 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”), challenging the awards dated 15.10.2025 passed by the learned 9th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) (in short “Claims Tribunal”), arising out of accident dated 22.09.2021. Since all the claimants were passengers of the offending vehicle and the claim petitions arose out of the same accident, these civil revisions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. 4. For the sake of convenience and to avoid unnecessary repetition, the particulars of all the civil revisions filed by the insurer, whereby the awards dated 15.10.2025 passed by the learned 9th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, (C.G.) have been put to challenge, are being set out in a consolidated tabular form hereinbelow. The table contains the relevant details of each civil 5 revision, including the corresponding MACT case numbers, the names of the respective claimants, and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Sl. No. Civil Revision Number MACT Number Passed by Order dated Claimant’s name Awarded amount 1. 37/2026 288/2022 9th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) 15.10.2025 Khik Bai Shriwas Rs.34,984/- 2. 38/2026 285/2022 9th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) 15.10.2025 Radha Bai Rs.25,000/- 3. 39/2026 351/2022 9th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) 15.10.2025 Shivratan Shriwas Rs.70,060/- 4. 40/2026 289/2022 9th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) 15.10.2025 Jagmati Dhanwar Rs.25,000/- 5. 41/2026 287/2022 9th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) 15.10.2025 Sanjana Vaishnav Rs.25,000/- 6. 42/2026 350/2022 9th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) 15.10.2025 Chameli Bai Shriwas Rs.99,524/- 7. 43/2026 257/2022 9th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) 15.10.2025 Narad Prasad Kashyap Rs.25,000/- 8. 45/2026 290/2022 9th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) 15.10.2025 Bindia Bai Vaishnav Rs.25,000/- 9. 46/2026 284/2022 9th Motor Accident Claims 15.10.2025 Smt. Bhuri Bai Rs.37,433/- 6 Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. The brief facts of the claim petitions, as emerge on record, are that on 22.09.2021, all the claimants were travelling as passengers in the offending vehicle, i.e. a bus bearing registration No. CG-11/DB/1822, for the purpose of performing Pinddaan (a sacred religious ritual). When the offending vehicle reached near Behar Valley, the driver, while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and without due care and caution, lost control over the offending vehicle, as a result of which the bus veered off the road and overturned (turtle down). Owing to the said accident, all the claimants/passengers sustained grievous injuries of varying nature and severity. Consequently, each of the injured passengers filed separate claim petitions before the learned Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the said accident. 6. Before the learned Claims Tribunal, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle were arrayed as non-applicants; however, they chose not to contest the proceedings. They were proceeded against ex parte and did not file their respective written statements nor adduced any evidence in defence. 7. Since the offending vehicle was admittedly insured with the United India Insurance Company, the insurer appeared and filed its written statement denying its liability. The Insurance Company 7 disputed the occurrence of the accident and further pleaded breach of policy conditions. It was specifically contended that the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid registration, fitness certificate, and permit on the date of the accident, and that the driver of the offending vehicle was also not holding a valid and effective driving licence. It was further pleaded that the offending vehicle had been shown as stationary and unused at the RTO, Janjgir-Champa for the period from 01.08.2021 to 30.09.2021, and therefore, it could not have been lawfully plied during the said period. According to the insurer, although the vehicle was subsequently released from the concerned RTO on 22.09.2021, it was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and hence, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the owner or to satisfy the award of compensation. 8. Upon due consideration of the pleadings, appreciation of the rival submissions advanced by the parties, and evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Claims Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant Insurance Company on the date and time of the accident. The Tribunal further held that the Insurance Company had failed to discharge its burden of proving any fundamental breach of the policy conditions. Accordingly, the learned Claims Tribunal fastened the liability to satisfy the awarded compensation upon the Insurance Company. 8 9. Learned counsel for the applicant/Insurance Company assails the impugned award dated 15.10.2025 as being vitiated by patent illegality, particularly in relation to the finding recorded under Issue No. 2. It is submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has gravely erred in holding that violation of the policy conditions was not established, despite there being clear, cogent, and unimpeached documentary evidence available on record. 10. Learned counsel submits that the offending vehicle was admittedly covered under a lay-up/hand-up endorsement for the period from 01.08.2021 to 30.09.2021, during which period the vehicle was not permitted to be plied on the road. The said fact stands duly proved through documentary evidence, namely Exhibits D/1 and D/2, which further demonstrate that an additional premium of Rs. 230/- was charged only for extension of the suspended period and not for permitting the vehicle to be put to use. It is contended that, during the subsistence of the lay-up period, the offending vehicle could not have been lawfully plied without prior intimation to, and approval of, the concerned Regional Transport Office as well as the insurer, which, admittedly, was never done in the present case. 11. It is further argued that the learned Claims Tribunal failed to appreciate that plying of the vehicle during the period of lay-up constitutes a clear and fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, thereby absolving the applicant- 9 insurer from any liability to indemnify the insured or to satisfy the award. 12. Learned counsel additionally submits that the Tribunal has committed a manifest error in not recording any categorical finding with regard to the existence of a valid and effective driving licence in favour of the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. The absence of such a finding, despite the specific defence raised by the insurer, itself amounts to non-consideration of a vital issue going to the root of the matter and constitutes a fundamental breach of policy conditions, warranting exoneration of the applicant-Insurance Company from liability. 13. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel submits that even assuming, though not admitting, that the applicant-insurer is liable to satisfy the award, the grant of interest @ 9% per annum is excessive, arbitrary, and not in consonance with the prevailing rate of interest awarded by the Courts. It is urged that the interest deserves to be suitably reduced to 6% per annum in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, the applicant- Insurance Company prays that the impugned award be set aside to the extent of fastening liability upon the applicant, and the insurer be exonerated from the liability to pay compensation; or, in the alternative, appropriate relief be granted by reducing the rate of interest awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 10 15. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant/Insurance Company and have carefully perused the material available on record, including the impugned awards dated 15.10.2025 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 16. Upon due consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant, a careful and comprehensive scrutiny of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record, and an in-depth perusal of the impugned awards dated 15.10.2025 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Claims Tribunal has meticulously examined each of the defences raised by the applicant-Insurance Company, particularly with regard to the alleged violation of policy conditions, including the plea of lay-up/hand-up endorsement, absence of valid registration, permit, fitness certificate, and driving licence. The Tribunal has rightly held that the burden of proving a fundamental breach of policy conditions squarely rested upon the Insurance Company, which it has failed to discharge by leading cogent, reliable, and convincing evidence. 17. The Tribunal has duly taken note of the fact that a criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle in connection with the same accident, wherein the relevant documents, namely registration certificate, permit, fitness certificate, insurance policy, pollution certificate, and driving licence, were seized by the police and brought on record. The 11 genuineness of these documents could not be doubted merely on the ground that the driver and owner of the offending vehicle were proceeded against ex parte, particularly when such documents form part of a criminal proceeding conducted by a statutory authority. The Tribunal has therefore rightly relied upon the said documents and the FIR to conclude that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and that the vehicle was duly insured and possessed valid documents at the relevant time. 18. With respect to the plea of lay-up endorsement and alleged stationary condition of the vehicle, the learned Claims Tribunal has recorded well-reasoned findings after critically analysing the docuements as well as the testimony of the insurer’s witness. The Tribunal has correctly observed that the documents relied upon by the Insurance Company did not conclusively establish that the offending vehicle was lawfully kept under lay-up or that it was released and plied in violation of the policy conditions. The fact that the application for lay-up was not made by the registered owner of the vehicle, coupled with the absence of any seal or acknowledgment of the Insurance Company on the said document, has been rightly held to erode the evidentiary value of the insurer’s case. 19. Furthermore, this Court finds that the learned Claims Tribunal has applied the settled principles governing motor accident claims and 12 insurance liability and has returned findings strictly based on evidence and law. The conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are neither perverse nor contrary to the material on record and do not suffer from any jurisdictional error calling for interference. 20. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited in scope and cannot be exercised to re-appreciate evidence or substitute a plausible view taken by the Tribunal with another view, unless the findings are shown to be palpably erroneous or manifestly unjust, which is not the case herein. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant-Insurance Company has failed to make out any ground warranting interference with the reasoned and well-considered awards passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. Consequently, all the civil revisions bearing CR No.37/2026, CR No.38/2026, CR No.39/2026, CR No.40/2026, CR No.41/2026, CR No.42/2026, CR No.43/2026, CR No.45/2026 and CR No.46/2026 are devoid of merit and are hereby dismissed. 22. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh