[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Magma General Insurance Company ... vs Manjeet Salam on 21 April, 2026
1
Digitally
signed
by
2026:CGHC:18049
SHAYNA
KADRI 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
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
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.
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
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
