High Court · 2025

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 331 of 2011 Appellant :- The Oriental Insurance Comp. Ltd. Through Its Divisional Respondent :- Smt. Jamuna Devi And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Deepak Kumar Agarwal,Deepak Agarwal,Mohd. Shamshad Khan,Rakesh Kumar Sharma,Shakeel Ahmad Ansari Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Deepak Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 6. None has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 7, though, he is sufficiently served and is represented by Sri Mohd. Shamshad Khan, learned counsel whose name is also printed in the additional cause list but has not put appearance at the time of call of the case. The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company assailing the award dated 17.01.2011 passed in Claim Petition No. 237 of 2007 wherein in a death case, a sum of Rs. 14, 31, 500/- has been awarded along with 6% interest payable to the claimant-respondent nos. 1 to 6. The dispute involved in the instant appeal is within a narrow compass. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that on 17.08.2007, the deceased Devendra Kumar was riding his motorcycle bearing No. UP-35-A-3330 and at around 09:30 AM while he had reached Murli Potato Cold storage, at that time, a LPG Tanker bearing No. UP-78-N- 3045 was coming from behind and it hit the motorcycle, as a result, and Sri Devendra Kumar died on the spot. It is in this context that a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed before the MACT bearing No. 237 of 2007. The aforesaid claim petition came to be contested and upon exchange of pleadings, the Tribunal framed six issues. In so far as the present appellant is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant has primarily attacked the findings in so far as the issue no. 2 is concerned. It is submitted by him that even though the driver may have had a driving license but he was not authorized to drive the requisite category of the vehicle which was involved in the accident. Elaborating his submissions, it is urged that the driver had a license to drive a transport vehicle but at the given date and time, he was driving a tanker containing LPG which is special category relating to vehicles carrying hazardous goods. In such circumstance, his license must possess an endorsement permitting him to drive the said category of vehicle which was not present and in view thereof there was a clear violation of the policy condition and in any case the award could not have been fastened on the appellant. In case if the amount was saddled upon the appellant yet the right of recovery should have been granted which has not been done which has prompted the appellant to institute the above appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed out that the Claims Tribunal has also erred in observing that the awarded sum would carry the interest of 6% to be paid within a period of 30 days failing which it would attract a penal interest of 9% which is incorrect. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken the Court to the findings recorded in so far as issue nos. (ii) and (iii) is concerned and it has been stated that the expression used by the Tribunal while rejecting the said submission of the appellant that there was no requirement for having an endorsement relating to a vehicle carrying hazardous goods is contrary to the statutory provisions and this aspect of the matter has already been considered at length by this Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Sheela and Others; 2023 (3) T.A.C. 222 (All.) wherein the precise issue was under consideration. It is further urged that this issue has recently been considered by the Apex Court in M/s Chatha Service Station Vs. Lalmati Devi and Others; 2025 SCC Online SC 756 wherein the Apex Court has also held that in so far as the vehicle carrying hazardous goods is concerned, the driver must have the requisite endorsement on his license and in case if such endorsement is not present that would amount to violation of the policy conditions. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 6 who represents the claimants do not dispute the aforesaid proposition and it is submitted that in so far as the claimants are concerned, they have not filed any appeal, consequently, all findings regarding negligence and the amount awarded by the Tribunal are concerned are acceptable. It is only a matter as to who would pay the amount to the claimants and to that extent it has been urged that since the death occurred in the year 2007 and the appeal is engaging the attention of this Court since 2011, the claimants have not received the full compensation. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and from the perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving a LPG tanker. The said driver of the vehicle carrying hazardous goods is required in terms of Rule 9 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to have a requisite endorsement permitting him to drive such category of the vehicle. In Smt. Sheela (supra), this Court in paragraphs 18 and 21 has held as under:- "18. From the conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that insofar as the heavy goods motor vehicles is concerned, the license issued to such a person is valid for a period of three years. However, where a driver is driving a transport vehicle carrying hazardous goods, for such vehicles, the driver must possess a separate endorsement and the said endorsement has to be renewed from time to time on an application made by the driver concerned as per the provisions and rules framed under the Act of 1988.

21. From the perusal of the aforesaid documents, it does not indicate that there is any endorsement for driving a transportation vehicle carrying hazardous goods as required in terms of Section 14 of the Act of 1988 read with Rules 9 and 132 framed under the Central Motor Rules, 1989. Thus, from the above, it would be clear that there is no dispute vehicle, however, there is nothing on record to indicate that h was also permitted to drive a transportation vehicle carrying dangerous/hazardous goods. Tankers which carry petrol, gas and other inflammable articles and are permitted to transport such commodities and ply on public roads, the law has formulated certain rules and provisions and only after complying with the same, a vehicle of such category can be driven by a person authorized as per law. The authority or the license to drive a vehicle in a public place is in compliance of the statutory requirement under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. " "The Apex Court in M/s Chatha Service Station (supra) has held as under:- "22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalmati Devi (supra), while considering the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, 1988 and Rule 9 of the Rules, 1989 has held as under: “5. The learned Counsel for the insurance company pointed out that under Rule 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1982, the driver of a goods vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods is required to undergo a training as prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules and is further required to get an endorsement of such training having been undergone, in the transport vehicle license possessed by him. The driver who was examined before the Tribunal clearly accepted that there was no such endorsement made in his driving licence. The driver also stated that at the time of the accident, there was oil carried in the tanker. The respondent-insurer submits that the High Court has rightly declined reliance on the training certificate produced in the first appeal, finding it to be not acceptable as per Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and further, emphasised the absence of an endorsement made in the driving licence.

6. We have looked at Section 14 of the Act, the proviso to which; as it stood at the time of the accident, restricted the validity of a license to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous and hazardous nature to one year and required a one day refresher course in the prescribed syllabus, for its renewal. Pertinent is Section 11, with the nominal heading 'Additions to driving license', sub-section (1) of which requires any addition to an existing license to drive any class or description of motor vehicle to be procured by making an application for the same to any licensing authority in the State and sub-section (2) makes the consideration of the application so filed, subject to the rules prescribed by the Central Government and the provisions of Section 9; which provision speaks generally about 'Grant of driving license'. Xxxxxxxxx 11. Rule 9 requires that "any person driving a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life shall, in addition to being the holder of a driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, also has the ability to read and write at least one Indian language specified in the VIIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India and English and also possess a certificate of having successfully passed a course consisting of the syllabus detailed thereunder". The syllabus stipulated cannot be found to be that which is confined to proper care being taken of the dangerous or hazardous goods carried in the vehicle; which is only one part of the three-part syllabus tabulated in the Rules as parts 'A', 'B' & 'C'. Parts 'A' & 'B' specifically emphasise the driving skill and efficiency that is required while carrying dangerous or hazardous goods; the Product Safety, including Product Information and Emergency Procedures having been delineated in Part 'C'. The syllabus in Part 'A' includes defensive driving and Part 'B' is with respect to advanced driving skills and training. Under 'Product Safety' comes the emergency procedures to deal with spillage handling, firefighting, toxic release control, first aid, use of protective equipment etc. The statute having provided for a course of three days and the rules having prescribed the syllabus; which prescription is not confined to the product safety or safe handling of goods, while in transportation or when put in danger, we cannot find the absence of such endorsement of the training course having been undertaken to be a venial breach, not absolving the Insurance Company of its liability. 12. We have to also emphasise that in the present case, the tanker was carrying oil; for which it is intended, while the accident occurred. We hasten to add that we may not be misunderstood as agreeing to the corollary to the argument that a licence holder without the endorsement under Rule 9, could drive an empty goods vehicle intended to carry hazardous goods, designed specifically for that purpose. The breach of non-compliance of the statutory requirement to undergo a training course to upskill the driving efficiency and product safety cannot be brushed aside as a technical breach not contributing to the accident. Xxxxxxxxx 16. In the present case there was a contention taken by the driver of the vehicle who was examined before the Tribunal that he swerved the vehicle to save pedestrians and this caused the accident. However, the deposition of CW2, the eye-witness goes contrary to the said self-serving statement of the driver, coupled with the fact that the charge sheet also was against the driver, for the offence of causing death by reason of rash and negligent driving. The eye-witness clearly deposed that the accident was caused by the reason of "rash and negligent driving of the vehicle" which the driver was not entitled to drive for reason of lack of endorsement on his licence as required under Section 11 read with Rule 9 of the Act and Rules. 17. Admittedly, the driver did not have a licence as required under the Act and the Rules to drive a vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods. There is also no dispute that the offending vehicle; the oil tanker, was a vehicle intended to carry goods of dangerous and hazardous nature. The contention taken by the owner of the offending vehicle that there was no goods carried at the time of the accident, was negated by both the Tribunal and the High Court finding from the testimony of the driver that it was carrying oil at the relevant time.” In light of the aforesaid admitted position where the vehicle in question i.e. the LPG Tanker was involved in the accident and its driver did not have the necessary endorsement, there can be two views that the aforesaid award ought to have been serviced by the owner. Since the owner has not appeared despite being represented, the Court has no option but to decide the matter in his absence and in light of the material on record. In so far as the second submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, this Court finds that the submission has force, the Tribunal could not have granted interest at a particular rate failing which the penal interest was payable and to that extent, the observations of the Claims Tribunal is set aside. [See Vedanta Ltd. Vs. Shenzen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Co. Ltd., 2018 SCC Online SC 1922 & Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saleem and Others; 2014 (32) LCD 3931 & ] The award dated 17.1.2011 is modified only to the extent that the amount as payable in terms of the award dated 17.01.2011 along with 6% interest shall be first paid by the Insurance Company who shall be entitled to recover the same from the respondent no. 7 in accordance with law. Any amount received by the claimants shall be adjusted from the amount paid to the claimants and the Insurance Company shall also pay the remaining sum to the claimants in terms of the award within a period of 60 days from today. Any amount deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal to be released in favour of the claimants in accordance with the award in question. With the aforesaid observations, the present appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs. ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Asheesh/-