1 2026:CGHC:188 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 152 of 2025 1 - The New India Assurance Company Limited Through - Branch Manager, Address - Second Floor, L.I.C. Investment Building, Phase-Ii, Jeevan Beema Marg, Pandari Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Through - The Manager Of T.P. Hube, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Near Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Bolero Bearing Registration No. Cg-07/bq-7290). ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Sushila Verma W/o Bhuvan Lal Verma Aged About 49 Years R/o Village- Khamtarai, Tahsil - Berla, District- Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - Aditya Kumar Patil S/o Santosh Kumar Patil Aged About 23 Years R/o Village- Ghatiyakala, Post- Godgiri, Tahsil And Police Station- Berla, District- Bemetara, (C.G.) (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Cg-07/bq-7290). 3 - Dalendra Rajput S/o Bharat Singh Rajput Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Hasda, Tahsil And Police Station - Berla, District- Bemetara, (C.G.) (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Cg-07/bq-7290). ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 02/01/2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following reliefs:- “It, is therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to make an order to set-aside/quash the impugned award dated 15- 01-2025 (Annexure A-1), passed in Claim Case No.75/2024 by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 11.12.2023, the claimant, along with other villagers, travelled in a Bolero vehicle to District Mungeli, and while returning, when the vehicle reached near village Hasda, the non-applicant No.1 drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the vehicle overturned, causing the claimant and other occupants to sustain grievous injuries; thereafter, the claimant was immediately taken to the District Hospital, Berla, where she received primary treatment and was subsequently referred to Agrawal Hospital, Raipur, where her right shoulder was operated upon. On account of the said accident, the claimant filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs. 3,80,000/-, inter alia pleading that she was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month by working as a labourer, but due to the injuries sustained in the accident, she is no longer in a position to 3 perform her work as earlier. The non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 filed their reply denying the averments made in the claim application, and non-applicant No.2 pleaded that the claimant and other persons, being residents of a nearby village, had gone to a religious place at Pendritarai without paying any fare, and while returning, the tyre of the vehicle burst, and since the vehicle was insured, the liability, if any, ought to be fastened upon the insurer. The insurer, in its reply, pleaded that 4–5 persons were travelling in the vehicle, which was insured as a private vehicle but was allegedly being used for commercial purposes (hire and reward), thereby violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policy; it was further pleaded that the policy issued was a liability-only policy, under which the risk of occupants of the vehicle is not covered, as they do not fall within the definition of third parties, and therefore, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the award. On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned MACT framed four issues, all of which were decided in favour of the claimant. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the imposition of penal interest upon the insurance company is wholly contrary to the settled principles of law. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has granted an unduly short period of only 30 days to the insurance company for payment of the awarded compensation and has further directed that, upon expiry of the said period, penal interest at the rate of 9% per annum shall be levied. According to 4 learned counsel, such a direction is arbitrary, unreasonable, and unsustainable in law, as the grant of penal interest in the aforesaid manner is not justified by the facts and circumstances of the case, and therefore the impugned direction relating to penal interest deserves to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the insurance company has already deposited 50% of the amount. The insurance company is directed to pay the rest of the amount within a period of 45 days. Since, the amount which was passed against the insurance company is meager one and shall not affect any other connected matters arising in relation to the death/injury of a person involved in the accident. 6. Accordingly, the revision is allowed in part as indicated above. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat