1 2026:CGHC:19755 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 111 of 2026 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd Company Limited R/o Head Office, E-8 Rhcoi, Industrial Area, Sitapura Jaipur ( Rajasthan ) Through -Regional Manager Having Regional Office At Plot No.-1, 4th, Floor Maruti Heights, Besides Sky Auto Maruti Dealer, Mahoba, Bazar, Besides R.K. Mall, G.E. Road Raipur District Raipur C.G. ... Applicant. Versus 1 - Smt, Mithila Bai, W/o Manjan Singh Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Chulhapara, P.S. Gurur, District Balod C.G. -(Claimant) 2 - Rajendra Kumar Thakur S/o Khedu Ram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Tengnabarpara, P.S. And Tehsil Gurur District Balod C.G. - (Driver) 3 - Kameshwar Sahu S/o Fagnu Ram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Salebhat, P,s. And Tehsil -Gurur District Balod C.G. - (Owner) ... Respondent(s) (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate. For Respondents : - (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 29/04/2026 1. Heard on application for condonation of delay (IA No.2/2026). Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after passing of award an opinion was sought from the local counsel and thereafter from second counsel at Bilaspur. Due such communications and opinion, the revision could not be filed within time, therefore, delay of 136 days may be condoned. 3. Considering the above submission and reasons assigned in the application, delay is condoned. IA No.2 is allowed. 4. Heard on admission. 5. This revision has been preferred by the applicant Insurance Company challenging the award dated 22/08/2025 passed by the First Motor Accident Accident Claims Tribunal Balod, District Balod in Claim Case No.14/2014, whereby, learned Claims Tribunal has partly allowed the claim application filed by respondent No.1/claimant and directed the Insurance Company and owner/driver to pay the compensation of Rs.25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. to the claimant, jointly and severally. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although the impugned award has been passed looking to the claimant's injuries resulting from the accident, however, the concerned doctor whose testimony was essential for a proper adjudication of the case was not examined. Therefore, the award is legally untenable and deserves to be set aside. 7. It is undisputed that the Insurance Company has not proved any breach of policy conditions. Instead, their primary objection rests on the claimant’s failure to examine the doctor. However, considering the fact that the Claims Tribunal awarded a small sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation, therefore, the absence of medical testimony does not render the entire compensation 3 improper. Considering the nominal nature of the award, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned award. 8. According, the revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself. 9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay