[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Branch Manager Magma General Insurance ... vs Mandeep Kispotta on 30 March, 2026
Digitally
signed by
RAVVA
1
UTTEJ
KUMAR
RAJU
2026:CGHC:14810
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CR No. 78 of 2026
Branch Manager Magma General Insurance Company Limited Branch Office-
01 Four Pujari Chamber Block A-01, Dharmanagar Tagore Nagar Abhanpur
Road Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Petitioner
Versus
1 - Mandeep Kispotta Father Shivram Kispotta Aged About 27 Years R/o
Village- Batauli (Bagichapara), Police Station And Tehsil- Batauli, District-
Surguja (C.G.) (Claimant).
2 - Paras Bhainsa Father Jhagru Bhainsa Aged About 30 Years Resident
Narmadapur, Police Station Kamleshwarpur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh)
(Driver Of The Vehicle).
3 - Sunil Kumar Agarwal Father Bajrang Lal Agarwal Aged About 52 Years
Director, Kudargadhi Steel Private Limited, Resident- Banaras Chowk, Next
To Rb Petrol Pump, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) (Owner Of The
Vehicle)
... Respondents
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System Software.)
For Petitioner : Ms. Nikita Dubey, Advocate.
For Respondents : None.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order On Board
30.03.2026
1. The present civil revision has been preferred by the
petitioner/Insurance Company challenging the legality and correctness
of the award dated 13.11.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur (C.G.) in Claim Case filed under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, whereby compensation of ₹19,600/-
along with interest @ 9% per annum has been awarded in favour of the
claimant/respondent No.1.
2. Heard on I.A.No.01/2026, for condonation of delay in filing the revision
in which there is a delay of 12 days in filing the present revision.
3. The ground for delay has been explained on account of administrative
procedures, including obtaining approval from the Head Office,
engagement of empanelled counsel, drafting, and approval of the
revision petition.
4. Considering the short duration and sufficient cause shown, I.A.
No.01/2026 is allowed and the delay of 12 days in filing the revision is
hereby condoned.
5. Heard on admission.
6. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 09.07.2024, while the
claimant/respondent No.1 herein was travelling as a pillion rider on a
motorcycle driven by Rajeshwar Ram Nayak from village Batouli to his
residence, the offending vehicle truck bearing No. CG-15-DG-2355,
driven rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle from behind near
Chiranga Mod, in front of Rajasthani Dhaba. As a result, the
claimant/respondent No.1 herein sustained serious injuries on his legs,
hands, face, and head. The claimant/respondent No.1 herein was
treated at District Hospital, Ambikapur, and subsequently at a private
hospital. In connection with the said accident, Crime No. 74/2024 was
registered at Police Station Batouli against Non-applicant No.1
(driver)/respondent No.2 herein. The offending vehicle is owned by
Non-applicant No.2. At the time of the accident, the
claimant/respondent No.1 herein was aged about 27 years. Hence, the
claimant/respondent No.1 herein field a claim petition claiming total
compensation Rs.3,50,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum.
7. Non-applicants No.1 and 2/ respondent No.2 and 3 herein, in their
written statement, denied the averments made in the claim petition.
They admitted the occurrence of the accident but contended that the
remaining facts are false and fabricated. It was further stated that Non-
applicant No.1 was holding a valid driving license and that the vehicle
was duly insured with The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd./appellant
herein Therefore, no liability can be fastened upon them.
8. Non-applicant No.3 (Insurance Company)/petitioner herein contended
that there was a violation of policy conditions inasmuch as the vehicle
was being operated without valid permit, fitness, and proper
authorization. It was also contended that the driver did not possess a
valid transport license. It was further alleged that the motorcycle driver
was negligent and that the applicant was not wearing a helmet. The
claim was stated to be collusive and liable to be dismissed.
9. After evaluating the evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal
recorded its finding that at the time of incident, the since the offending
vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1/respondent No.2
herein, which was owned by non-applicant No.2/respondent No.3 and
was insured with Insurance Company/petitioner herein, held it
accountable to pay compensation first and recover from non-applicant
No.2/respondent No.3 herein, and awarded the compensation of
Rs.19,600/-along with interest @ 9% per annum in favour of the
claimant/respondent No.1 herein for the injuries sustained by him in the
accident. Hence, this revision for absolvement.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Insurance Company submits that the
impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is wholly erroneous,
both on facts as well as in law, and is liable to be set aside. It is
contended that the learned Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate
the material available on record and has recorded findings which are
contrary to the evidence and settled legal principles.
11. It is further argued that the learned Tribunal has committed a grave
error in overlooking the fact that the offending vehicle was being plied
without a valid and effective permit, in clear violation of the provisions
of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Such use of the vehicle
without a permit constitutes a fundamental breach of the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy. In view of such breach, the
Insurance Company cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured, and
the fastening of liability upon the appellant is unsustainable in law.
12. Learned counsel also contends that the learned Tribunal has failed to
consider the aspect of contributory negligence. According to him, the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of both
the offending truck as well as the motorcycle. However, the learned
Tribunal has erroneously attributed the entire negligence solely upon
the driver of the insured vehicle without proper analysis of the evidence
on record, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
13. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded interest at
the rate of 9% per annum, which is excessive and unreasonable in the
facts and circumstances of the case. The said rate is not in
consonance with the prevailing bank rates and judicial trends. It is also
argued that the Tribunal has failed to assign any cogent or special
reasons for awarding interest at such a higher rate, thereby rendering
the award unsustainable on this count as well. Thus, the impugned
award is liable to be set aside.
14. None appeared for the respondents.
15. On due consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the petitioner/Insurance Company and upon perusal of the entire
record of the Claims Tribunal, this Court finds no merit in the present
civil revision. The learned Tribunal has passed a well-reasoned and
speaking award after proper appreciation of oral as well as
documentary evidence, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle
were held liable to pay compensation. The general grounds raised by
the petitioner that the award is erroneous on facts and law are vague
and do not disclose any specific perversity or illegality warranting
interference.
16. So far as the contention regarding breach of policy conditions on
account of absence of a valid permit is concerned, the Tribunal has
already recorded a categorical finding that the offending vehicle was
being plied without a valid permit. However, in view of the settled legal
position governing third-party claims, the Tribunal has rightly applied
the principle of "pay and recover" and directed the Insurance
Company/petitioner herein to satisfy the award at the first instance with
liberty to recover the same from the owner. The said approach is in
consonance with settled law and does not call for any interference.
17. The plea of contributory negligence raised by the petitioner is also
found to be without substance. The Tribunal has recorded a clear
finding of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the
offending vehicle based on FIR, charge-sheet and unrebutted
testimony of the claimant. Significantly, neither the driver nor the owner
of the vehicle stepped into the witness box to rebut the evidence led by
the claimant. In absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary, the
finding of the Tribunal cannot be termed as perverse.
18. With regard to the challenge to the rate of interest, this Court finds that
the Tribunal has awarded simple interest @ 9% per annum, which is in
line with the settled judicial precedents and cannot be said to be
excessive or unreasonable. No special circumstances have been
shown by the petitioner to warrant interference on this aspect.
19. It is well settled that the scope of interference in civil revision is limited
and does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence unless the findings
are shown to be perverse or suffering from jurisdictional error or
material irregularity. In the present case, no such infirmity has been
demonstrated. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based
on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and settled
principles of law.
20. Accordingly, the present civil revision being devoid of merit is liable to
be and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
JUDGE
U.K. Raju
