Branch Manager vs Kumari @ Kamala Jagat

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J

The present revision petition has been filed being aggrieved by the award dated 14.07.2025 passed by the learned Ninth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 2018/2021.

Brief facts of the case are that, The Claimant/Non-Applicant No.1 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of ₹8,10,000/- for permanent disability sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 14.01.2018 at about 9:00 AM near Employment Exchange, Pandri, Civil Lines, Raipur, when she was walking on foot and was hit by Bolero No. CG-19-T-0582, allegedly driven rashly and negligently by Non-Applicant No.2; the vehicle was owned by Non-Applicant No.3 and insured with the present Applicant. The claimant suffered grievous injuries, remained admitted in Avanti Hospital for about a month, and claimed to be 55 years old working as a labourer earning ₹6,000 per month. While Non-Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 remained ex parte, the Applicant/insurer contested the claim on grounds of violation of policy conditions, absence of valid permit, fitness and licence, and alleged contributory negligence of the claimant. The Tribunal framed five issues and held Issues No.1 and 2— regarding the negligent driving and permanent disability—proved, and Issue No.3—regarding breach of policy conditions—not proved, and awarded compensation with interest, directing the Applicant to deposit the amount. The Applicant thereafter filed MAC No. 2472/2025 and sought amendment in the memo of appeal, but upon the Court not being inclined to allow the amendment, withdrew the appeal with liberty to file a fresh revision, leading to the present Civil Revision.

Learned counsel for the applicant Insurance Company submits that that the learned Tribunal has committed a serious error in fastening the liability upon the Applicant despite the fact that there was no cogent evidence to establish that on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle Bolero No. CG-19-T-0582 possessed a valid and effective permit as required under the Motor Vehicles Act for being used as a motor cab. The Applicant had specifically pleaded and proved through its written statement that the Non-Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 had violated the mandatory policy conditions by operating the vehicle without a permit, fitness and valid driving licence, and such breach goes to the root of the contract of insurance. In absence of any permit documents or testimony from the owner or driver—who both remained ex parte —the Tribunal could not have presumed compliance with statutory requirements, yet it erroneously held Issue No.3 as “not proved,” thereby saddling the Applicant with liability. It is further submitted that even the name of the insurance company has been wrongly mentioned in the proceedings and award as “The New India Insurance Company Limited” instead of the correct name “The New India Assurance Company Limited,” causing prejudice and vitiating the impugned award. Hence, the Applicant has rightly raised the ground of absence of valid permit as a substantive ground for exoneration, which the Tribunal has failed to consider in accordance with law.

None appears for the respondent.

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record.

From a careful perusal of the record and an assessment of the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, it is evident that the findings and conclusions reached are fair and in accordance with the evidence on record. The revision petition lacks merit and is, therefore, hereby dismissed.

Therefore, I find no illegality or error in the award passed by the Tribunal. The revision petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.

It is further clarified that this dismissal shall not affect any other connected cases arising out of the same accident, which shall continue to be adjudicated independently.