1 2026:CGHC:18049 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 103 of 2026 1 - Magma General Insurance Company Limited (Earlier Magma Hdi) Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office At D.B. City Corporate Park, Fifth Floor, Rajbandha Maidan, G.E. Road, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Manjeet Salam S/o Late Bablu Salam Aged About 14 Years R/o Shiv Nagar Ward Kanker, Police Station Kanker, District- Kanker, Present Address- Abhanpur, Police Station Abhanpur, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Represented Through Mother Smt. Dolly Salam)(Claimant) 2 - Rakesh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Channu Sahu R/o House No. 394, Shiv Uday Nagar Ward, Behind Kendriya School, Kanker, Police Station Kanker, District- Kanker (C.G.)(Legal Representative Of Driver And Owner) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Applicant : Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 21/04/2026 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01 of 2026, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the instant revision. 2. On due consideration of the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the present revision is hereby condoned. 3. None appears for the respondents. Accordingly, the revision is heard finally at the stage of admission. 4. This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the applicant–Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the award dated 30.09.2025 passed by the learned Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in MACT Case No. 731/2022 (Manjeet Salam & Others vs. Rakesh Kumar Sahu & Another), whereby compensation has been awarded in favour of the claimants and liability has been fastened jointly and severally upon the driver/owner and the Insurance Company. 5. The facts, in brief, are that the claimants had filed an application under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 19,00,000/- on account of injuries 3 sustained by Manjeet Salam in a motor accident dated 03.02.2019. The accident occurred within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kanker, near National Highway Road No. 30, Nathiya Nawagaon, when the vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-FC- 2005, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, lost control and dashed against a roadside tree. As a result of the accident, several occupants of the vehicle sustained grievous injuries, and two persons, namely Bablu Salam and Manju Sahu, died on the spot. A criminal case bearing Crime No. 29/2019 was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Before the Claims Tribunal, the present applicant–Insurance Company raised objections, inter alia, contending that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license and that there was breach of policy conditions. It was also contended that the legal heirs of the deceased driver/owner were necessary parties and non-impleadment thereof rendered the claim petition not maintainable. The Learned Claims Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal rejected the defence of the Insurance Company regarding breach of policy conditions on the ground that the same was not proved. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum and held the Insurance Company liable to pay the said amount. 4 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned award is contrary to law and facts on record. It is contended that the Tribunal has erred in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company despite there being a clear breach of policy conditions, inasmuch as the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. It is further submitted that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate that the burden of proving the existence of a valid driving license was upon the owner/claimants, and in absence of production of such license, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn. It is also argued that at least recovery rights should have been granted in favour of the Insurance Company. Learned counsel further submits that the claim petition itself was not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties, particularly the legal heirs of the deceased driver/owner, and the Tribunal erred in proceeding ex parte against him. It is contended that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse and liable to be set aside. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned award be interfered with and the liability fastened upon the Insurance Company be set aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record of the case. 8. From perusal of the impugned award, it is evident that the Learned Claims Tribunal has duly considered the evidence 5 brought on record and has recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal has also considered the defence raised by the Insurance Company regarding breach of policy conditions and has rejected the same on the ground that no cogent evidence was adduced to substantiate such plea. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of CPC is limited and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence unless the findings recorded by the Court below are perverse or suffer from jurisdictional error. In the present case, no such perversity or illegality is demonstrated. 9. Considering aforesaid aspect of the matter and considering meagre amount as granted by the Tribunal and the grounds raised by the Insurance Company, I do not find the present to be a fit case to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed. 10. However, it is observed that this order will not preclude the Insurance Company to file another claim petition and the claim petition, if filed, shall be heard and decided on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made by this Court. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge