1 2026:CGHC:13704 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 13 of 2023 United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Office No.-403, Station Road, Near Gurudwara, Durg, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Beniram Sahu S/o Jethuram Sahu Aged About 59 Years R/o - Village-Devsara, P.S.-Arjunda, Distt.-Balod (C.G.), Hal Mukam - In Front of Sai Hospital, Utai, P.S. Utai, Distt.-Durg (C.G.) 2 - Surendra Kumar Raut S/o - Late Ramnath Raut Aged About 27 Years R/o - Vill. - Samoda, P.S. - Jevra - Sirsa, Distt.-Durg (C.G.) (Driver) 3 - Jitendra Rathi S/o - Nankdishor Rathi R/o - Green City, Rishabh Nagar, Near Jalaram Vatika, Durg, Distt. - Durg (C.G.) (Owner) ... Non-applicants (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 23.03.2026 1. Though the matter is listed under the head of default, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the defect(s) as pointed out by the Registry have already been duly cured. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.03.28 14:34:12 +0530 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant finally, as only a limited issue is involved in the present case, namely, the contention that the Insurance Company is liable to be exonerated on the ground that, on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle did not possess a valid permit. 3. The applicant/Insurance Company has filed the present civil revision with the following prayer :- “It is, therefore, preyed that the award dated 18/10/2022, passed by IVth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Distt.-Durg (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 450/2019, (between the parties Beniram Sahu Vs. Surendra Kumar Raut & Ors.), against the Petitioner Insurance Company, may kindly be set aside holding it bad and illegal in the interest of justice.” 4. The facts of the present civil revision, in brief, are that as per the claimant, on 16.01.2018, one Beniram Sahu was proceeding on his motorcycle from village Nikum to village Utai when, on the way, non-applicant No.2 herein, while driving a Metadoor bearing registration No. CG-07-BE-0892 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’) in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the said motorcycle, resulting in injuries to the claimant. On account of the said accident, the claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of 3 Rs.13,23,612/- against non-applicant Nos.2 and 3 as well as the present applicant/Insurance Company. 5. During the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, non-applicant Nos.2 and 3 were proceeded ex parte and did not file their written statement. The applicant/Insurance Company, however, filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended, inter alia, that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and that no disability certificate had been produced to substantiate the alleged injuries. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed issues and, after appreciating the evidence on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.97,500/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization in favour of the claimant and against the applicant/Insurance Company. 7. Being aggrieved by the said award, the applicant/Insurance Company has preferred the present civil revision. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant/Insurance Company submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is bad in law and contrary to the evidence available on record. It is contended that the learned Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the material evidence led by the Insurance Company, particularly with regard to the absence of a valid permit of the offending vehicle at the time of 4 the accident, and has thus erroneously fastened the liability upon the applicant. 9. Learned counsel further submits that non-applicant No.3, being the owner of the offending vehicle, failed to produce any valid permit before the learned Tribunal, despite the specific defence taken by the applicant. It is argued that the applicant had duly proved, by leading evidence, that the vehicle in question was being plied without a valid permit, which constitutes a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. However, the learned Tribunal failed to consider this aspect in its proper perspective. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amrit Paul Singh and Another v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2018) 7 SCC 558 wherein it has been held that it is the duty of the insured to establish that the vehicle was being operated with a valid and effective permit, and failure to do so would entitle the insurer to be exonerated. 10. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of the aforesaid legal position, the learned Tribunal ought to have exonerated the applicant/Insurance Company from liability. Alternatively, it is prayed that since the non-applicant No.1/claimant is a third party, and the applicant has already deposited the awarded amount before the learned Tribunal, appropriate directions be issued permitting the applicant to recover the said amount from non- 5 applicant Nos.2 and 3, i.e., the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 11. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant and perused the documents annexed with the present civil revision. 12. From perusal of the impugned award, it transpires that while deciding Issue No.3, the learned Claims Tribunal has held that although the offending vehicle was duly insured with the applicant/Insurance Company on the date of the accident, the defence taken by the Insurance Company regarding absence of a valid permit has not been proved. The Tribunal has taken note of the testimony of NAW-1, Sumit Bhattacharyaji, Assistant Manager of the Insurance Company, who stated that the vehicle in question was insured under package policy (Exhibit D-1) and that, as per the vehicle particulars obtained from the RTO, Durg (Exhibit D-2), the vehicle was a goods vehicle requiring a valid permit. He further deposed that in the seizure memo (Exhibit D-3), no permit was shown to have been seized, on the basis of which the Insurance Company alleged breach of policy conditions. 13. The learned Tribunal, however, found that the said testimony of Sumit Bhattacharyaji (NAW-1) was not supported by any cogent documentary evidence to establish that the offending vehicle was actually being plied without a valid permit on the date of the accident. It was observed that the Insurance Company, despite having access to the RTO records, did not make any effort to 6 obtain or produce any official record regarding non-issuance or non-existence of permit, nor was any notice issued to the owner to produce the same. The Tribunal held that mere non-seizure of permit in the seizure memo cannot be treated as conclusive proof of absence of permit. 14. The Tribunal also distinguished the judgment relied upon by the Insurance Company on facts, observing that in the said case there was sufficient documentary and oral evidence to prove absence of permit, which is lacking in the present case. Accordingly, it was concluded that the Insurance Company has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it to prove breach of policy conditions, and therefore, Issue No.3 was decided against the Insurance Company, holding that the alleged violation on account of absence of permit is not proved. 15. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant/Insurance Company and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no illegality or perversity can be attributed to the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal while deciding Issue No.3. The Tribunal has, after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, categorically held that the applicant/Insurance Company has failed to discharge the burden of proving breach of policy conditions on account of absence of a valid permit. The said finding is based on 7 proper evaluation of the evidence on record and does not call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 16. This Court finds that the contention of the applicant that the offending vehicle was being plied without a valid permit is not supported by any cogent or reliable documentary evidence. The mere fact that the permit was not seized, as reflected in the seizure memo, cannot by itself lead to an inference that the vehicle did not possess a valid permit. The learned Tribunal has rightly observed that no effort was made by the applicant to obtain relevant records from the concerned RTO or to call upon the owner to produce the permit. In absence of such material evidence, the plea of breach of policy condition remains unsubstantiated. 17. So far as the reliance placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amrit Paul Singh (supra) is concerned, the same does not advance the case of the applicant in the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the foundational fact regarding absence of permit has itself not been proved. The applicability of the said judgment would arise only when such breach is duly established by leading cogent evidence, which is lacking in the present case. 18. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 is limited and can be exercised only where the subordinate Court has acted without jurisdiction, 8 failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, or acted with material irregularity. In the present case, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based on appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court. 19. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any merit in the present civil revision. The same is accordingly dismissed. The award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is hereby affirmed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh