HiGHCQURTOFCHHATTJSGARHATBILASPysi Civil Revision No.44/2007 Revision Petition under Section 118 ofthe C.P.C.. 1908 Single Bench: Hon'bie Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. (Revisionist) Non-Applicant No.3) National Insurance Company Limited Through: Its Branch Manager, Branch ofRce- Jagdalpur, Distt-Baster (CG) Versus Resoondents (ApDlicant) 1. Non-Apolicant No»1 Non-ApDiicant No. 2 Ku. Sukon Uike D/o" Ramcharan U!ke. aged-20 years, (agricultural-labourer) R/0-Village - Barbaspur, P.0. Hatkerra, P.S.-Korar, Tehsit & District-Kanker (CG) 2. Gopal S/0-Surajuram, Caste Halba, Aged-38 years, R/0- Vjllage-Chilhati, P.8.. Korar, Tahsil-Bhanupratappur, Distt.- Kanker (CG) (Driver) Ramsvarup Pandey, S/0 Ramsundar Pandey, R/0- Village-Korar, Tahsil- Bhanupratappur, Distt." Kanker (CG) (Owner) 3. Present:- Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for the applicant. ORAL ORDER (Passedon12WApril.2007) 1. Learned counsei for the applicant is aggrieved by the award dated 29.12.2006 passed by the learned M.A.C.T. North Baster, Distt. Kanker in ciaim case No. 70/2006 whereby compensation of Rs. 3,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimant. 2. It is not disputed fhat the claimant suffered injury as a result of the accident. It is aiso not disputed that the claimant was traveliing In the Matador No. CG 04/ZB/2348 at the time of the accident. It is further not disputed that the vehicle was under a valid policy of insurance at the time of the accident. 3. The oniy point contended by the learned counsel for the appjicant in this revision is that there was a fundamental breach of policy since the goods vehicle was being used to carry passengers. However, para 13 of the award cleariy shows that the Branch Manager of the Insurance Company was examined as a witness, who had testified that besides collectlng a premium of Rs.100/- for covering risk of the owner, a premium of RsJSO/- was collected for the risk of the driver, cleaner and labourers, and in addition to this, a premium of Rs.75/- had also been received Govering risk of any other person who was being carried in the vehicle. 4. In view of the above, no ground for interference is cajled for in the award passed by the learned M.A.C.T. This revision, being devoid of merit, is dismissed in Ifmine. \ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Priya