HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No.45/2007 Revision Petition under Section 115 ofthe C.P.C.. 1908 Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. (Revtsionjst) Non-ADDlicant No.3) Respondents fApDlicantt Non-ADDJicant No. 1 Non-ApDlicant No. 2 National insurance Company Limited Through: Its Branch Manager, Branch office- Jagdalpur, Distt-Bastar (CG) Versys 1. Mannanti' @ Mamotin Bai W/o Dhanva Ram Uike, agect 25 years, Occupation - Vegetable Seller, R/o Village - Barbaspur, Post - Hatkarra, P.S. - Korar, Tahsil & Distt. Kanker (C.G.) 2. Gopal S/o-Surajuram, Caste Halba, Aged-38 years, R/0- ViJiage-Chilhati, P.S. .Korar, Tahsil-Bhanupratappur, DJstt.- Kanker (CG) (Driver) 3. Ramsvarup Pandey, S/0 Ramsundar Pandey, R/0- Village-Korar, Tahsi!- Bhanupratappur, Distt.- Kanker (CG) (Owner) Present:- Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsei forthe applicant. ORALCMRDER (Passed on 12m ApriS. 2007) 1. Learned counsel for the appticant is aggrieved by the award dated 29.12.2006 passed by the learned M.A.C.T. South Bastar, Distt. Kanker in claim case No. 72/2006 whereby compensation of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimant. 2. It is not disputed that the claimant suffered injury as a result of the accident. It is also not disputed that the daimant was travelling tn the Matador No. CG 04/ZB/2348 at the time of the accident. tt is further not disputed that the vehicle was under a valid policy of insurance at the time of the accident. 3. The only point contended by the learned counsel for frie applicant in this revision is that there was a fundamental breach of policy since the goods vehicie was being used to carry passengers. However, para 13 of the impugned award cleariy shows that the Branch Manager of the Insuranoe Company was examined as a witness, who had testified that besides collecting a premium of Rs.100/- for covering risk of the owner, a premium of Rs.150/- was collected for the risk of the driver, cleaner and labourers, and in addition to this, a premium of Rs.75/- had atso been received covering risk of any other person who was being carried in the vehicie. 4. In view of the above, no ground for interference is called for in the award passed by the learned M.A.C.T. This revision, being devoid of merit, is dismissed in limine. Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Priya