HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No.46/2007 Revision Petition underSection IISoftheC.P.C.. 1908 Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Ditip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. (Revisionist) Non-Applicant No.31 Respondents (Appljcantt Non-ApDJicant No. 1 Non-ApDiicant No. 2 3. National Insurance Company Ljmited Through: Its Branch Manager, Braneh office" Jagdalpur, DJstt-Baster (CG) Versus Dhanai Bai, W/o Binesh, Aged 20 years, Occupation ~ Vegetabie Seiier, R/o Village - Barbaspur, Post Hatkara, P.S.— Korar, Tah. & Distt. - Kanker (C.G.) Gopal S/o-Surajuram, Caste Halba, Aged-38 years, R/0- Village-ChHhati. P.S. Korar. Tahsii-Bhanupratappur, Distt.- Kanker (CG) (Driver) Ramsvarup Pandey, S/0 Ramsundar Pandey, R/0- Vitlage-Korar, Tahsil" Bhanupratappur, Distt.- Kanker (CG) (Owner) Present:- Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for the applicant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 12th Aprit, 2007) 1. Learned counsel for the applicant is aggrieved by the award dated 29.12.2006 passed by the learned M.A.C.T. South Bastar, Distt. Kanker in ciaim case No.68/2006 whereby compensation ofRs.5,000/- was awarded in favour ofthe claimant. 2. !t is not disputed that the claimant suffered injury as a result of the accident. It is also not disputed that the claimant was travelling in the Matador No. CG 04/ZB/2348 at the time of the accident. It is fcirther not disputed that the vehicie was under a vaiid policy of insurance at the time of the accident. 3. The only point contended by the leamed counsel for the applicant in this revision is that thete was a fundamental breach of policy since the goods vehicle was being used to carry passengers. However, para 13 of the impugned award dearly shows that the Branch Manager of the Insurance 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 (abourers, and in addition to this, a premium of Rs.75/- had also been received covering risk of any other person who was being carried in the vehicle. 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, belng devoid of merit, is dismissed in fimine. | g^y_ i Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh \ Judge Pnya