Karam Chandra & Others v. B.K. Kookal & Others, whereby

5. The award has been challenged only to the extent that a right of recovery has not been given to the insurance company from the owner / driver of the vehicle.

6. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that an accident is said to have occurred on 23.06.2011 wherein Shri Sarju Prasad, the father of the claimants No.1 & 2 and the husband of the claimant No.3, who was riding a bicycle, was hit by a Vehicle No. WB-41/B-5695 and died on the spot.

7. Upon filing of the claim application, the owner and driver of the vehicle put in appearance and contested the claim.

8. It was demonstrated on behalf of the owner of the vehicle that the driver of the vehicle had a valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident.

9. On the other hand, the insurance company indicated that as from the statement of the witnesses it emerges that the accident has occurred from the vehicle which was a gas tanker, as such, in terms of Section 14 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1988") read with Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to "Rules, 1989"), the driving license of the driver should have had an endorsement of driving of a hazardous vehicle but the license did not contain any such endorsement and consequently, it cannot be said that the driver of the vehicle had an effective and valid driving license on the date of accident.

10. It is contended that once the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident keeping in view of the provision of Section 14 of the Act, 1988 and Rule 9 of the Rules, 1989, consequently, even though the insurance company has been directed to pay the amount of award yet a right of recovery should have been given to the insurance company to recover the said amount from the owner / driver of the vehicle.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants has also pointed out from the original records which have been perused by the Court that the driving license which has been filed by the driver numbered as 20ga/4 does not have the endorsement of driving a hazardous vehicle. He has also indicated from the Accident Inspection Report numbered as 6ga/19 that the vehicle is a gas tanker. It is, thus, contended that the requirement of an endorsement on the driving licence of the license to drive a hazardous vehicle is a sine qua non to the licence to be termed as valid and effective licence and in absence thereto, the right of recovery from the owner / driver of the truck should have been given by the learned Tribunal.

12. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S Chatha Service Station vs. Lalmati Devi & Ors., 2025 INSC 468, to contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, 1988 as well as Rule 9 of the Rules, 1989 to hold that in case the driver is driving a hazardous vehicle then the endorsement on the licence is required in order to enable it to be an effective and valid driving licence.

13. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record.

14. From a perusal of record, it emerges that an accident is said to have occurred on 23.06.2011 which has resulted in death of Shri Sarju Prasad who, on the fateful day, was driving a bicycle and was hit by a vehicle and died on the spot.

15. From the statement of the witnesses, it emerges that the vehicle involved in the accident was a gas tanker (internal page 7 of the judgment). From the accident inspection report, which is on record, it has been indicated that the vehicle was a gas tanker.

16. Section 14 of the Act, 1988 reads as under:- "14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles. - (1) A learners licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be effective for a period of six months from the date of issue of the licence . (2) A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall,- (a) in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of [five years]: [Provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of three years and renewal thereof shall be subject to such conditions as the Central Government may prescribe; and] ] [(b) in the case of any other licence, subject to such conditions as the Central Government may prescribe, if the person obtaining the licence, either originally or on renewal thereof, - (i) has not attained the age of thirty years on the date of issue or, renewal thereof, be effective until the date on which such person attains the age of forty years; or (ii) has attained the age of thirty years but has not attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or, renewal thereof, be effective for a period of ten years from the date of such issue or renewal; or (iii) has attained the age of fifty years but has not attained the age of fifty-five years on the date of issue or, renewal thereof, be effective until the date on which such person attains the age of sixty years; or (iv) has attained the age of fifty-five years on the date of issue or as the case may be, renewal thereof, be effective for a period of five years from the date of such issue or renewal."]

17. Rules 9 of the Rules, 1989 reads as under: “9. [ Educational qualifications for drivers of goods carriages carrying dangerous or hazardous goods]- [(1) One year from the date of commencement of Central Motor Vehicles(Amendment) Rules, 1993, 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 license to drive a transport vehicle, also has the ability to read and write at least one Indian language out of those specified in the [VIII] Schedule of the Constitution and English and also possess a certificate of having successfully passed a course consisting of following syllabus and periodicity connected with the transport of such goods.] Period of training 3 days Place of training At any institute recognized by the State Government Syllabus - A. Defensive driving Questionnaire Cause of accidents Accidents, statistics Driver’s personal fitness Car condition Braking distance Highway driving Road/Pedestrian crossing Railway crossing Adapting to weather Head-on collision Read-end collision Night driving Films and discussions B. Advanced driving skills and training (i)Discussion Before starting Duration of training for A & B -1st and 2nd day. Check list outside/below/near vehicle product side inside vehicle During driving correct speed/gear Before stopping After stopping Night driving signaling lane control overtaking/giving side speed limit/safe distance driving on slopes Safe stopping place, signaling, road width, condition preventing vehicle movement wheel clocks vehicle attendance mandatory lighting requirements. Headlamp alignment. Use of dipped beam. Duration of training for (C) Third day. (ii) Field test/training 1 driver at a time C. Product safety UN Panel Product information UN classification Hazchem code Toxicity, flammability, other definitions Tremcards CIS/MSDS Importance of temperature pressure, level. Explosive limits Knowledge about equipment Emergency procedure Communication Spillage handling Use of PPE Fire fighting First Aid Toxic release control Protection of wells, rivers, lakes, etc. Use of protective equipment Knowledge about valves, etc. (2) The holder of a driving license possessing the minimum educational qualification or the certificate referred to in sub-rule (1), shall make an application in writing on a plain paper along with his driving license and the relevant certificate to the licensing authority in whose jurisdiction here sides for making necessary entries in his driving license and if the driving license is in Form 7, the application shall be accompanied by the fee [as specified in the Table in rule 32] (3) The licensing authority, on receipt of the application referred to in sub-rule (2), shall make an endorsement in the driving license of the applicant to the effect that he is authorised to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life. (4) A licensing authority other than the original licensing authority making any such endorsement shall communicate the fact to the original licensing authority.

18. From a perusal of the Section 14 of the Act, 1988, it emerges that the same pertains to currency of licences to drive motor vehicles. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act, 1988 provides that a driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle be effective for a period of 5 years provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of 3 years.

19. Rule 9 of the Rules, 1989 provides for a minimum training and language comprehension required for driver of the good carriages carrying dangerous or hazardous goods.

20. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1989 provides that a licensing authority shall make an endorsement in the driving licence of the applicant to the effect that he is authorised to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous and hazardous nature to human life.

21. From the licence that was filed before the learned Tribunal by the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident, it appears that there is no endorsement on the licence of the licence holder being authorised to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous and hazardous nature to human life. Both from the statement of the witnesses before the learned Tribunal as well as from the accident inspection report, it emerges that the vehicle involved in the accident was a gas tanker and thus, the vehicle would fall within an ambit of being a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life.

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.”

23. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is thus apparent that the accident had occurred from the offending vehicle, which was a gas tanker, and the driver of the said vehicle did not have an effective and valid driving licence on the date of the accident as the driving license of the driver did not bear an endorsement of driving a dangerous and hazardous vehicle and in fact the vehicle from which the accident occurred was a gas tanker (dangerous and hazardous vehicle) and as such, the learned Tribunal should have given a right of recovery to the insurance company from the owner / driver of the vehicle.

24. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award of the learned Tribunal dated 27.02.2013 is modified to the extent that the insurance company would have a right of recovery against the owner / driver of the vehicle.

25. The statutory amount under deposit before this Court be remitted to the learned trial court within two weeks as per rules.

26. The amount under deposit shall be released by the learned Tribunal in favour of the claimants upon an application being filed in this regard by the claimants.

27. Learned Tribunal shall inform the claimants about this order within two weeks of the certified copy of this order being received by it.

28. Let the trial court record be returned.

29. The office shall inform the learned Tribunal about this order within two weeks from today. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 S. Shivhare SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

5. The award has been challenged only to the extent that a right of recovery has not been given to the insurance company from the owner / driver of the vehicle.

6. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that an accident is said to have occurred on 23.06.2011 wherein Shri Sarju Prasad, the father of the claimants No.1 & 2 and the husband of the claimant No.3, who was riding a bicycle, was hit by a Vehicle No. WB-41/B-5695 and died on the spot.

7. Upon filing of the claim application, the owner and driver of the vehicle put in appearance and contested the claim.

8. It was demonstrated on behalf of the owner of the vehicle that the driver of the vehicle had a valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident.

9. On the other hand, the insurance company indicated that as from the statement of the witnesses it emerges that the accident has occurred from the vehicle which was a gas tanker, as such, in terms of Section 14 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1988") read with Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to "Rules, 1989"), the driving license of the driver should have had an endorsement of driving of a hazardous vehicle but the license did not contain any such endorsement and consequently, it cannot be said that the driver of the vehicle had an effective and valid driving license on the date of accident.

10. It is contended that once the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident keeping in view of the provision of Section 14 of the Act, 1988 and Rule 9 of the Rules, 1989, consequently, even though the insurance company has been directed to pay the amount of award yet a right of recovery should have been given to the insurance company to recover the said amount from the owner / driver of the vehicle.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants has also pointed out from the original records which have been perused by the Court that the driving license which has been filed by the driver numbered as 20ga/4 does not have the endorsement of driving a hazardous vehicle. He has also indicated from the Accident Inspection Report numbered as 6ga/19 that the vehicle is a gas tanker. It is, thus, contended that the requirement of an endorsement on the driving licence of the license to drive a hazardous vehicle is a sine qua non to the licence to be termed as valid and effective licence and in absence thereto, the right of recovery from the owner / driver of the truck should have been given by the learned Tribunal.

12. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S Chatha Service Station vs. Lalmati Devi & Ors., 2025 INSC 468, to contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, 1988 as well as Rule 9 of the Rules, 1989 to hold that in case the driver is driving a hazardous vehicle then the endorsement on the licence is required in order to enable it to be an effective and valid driving licence.

13. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record.

14. From a perusal of record, it emerges that an accident is said to have occurred on 23.06.2011 which has resulted in death of Shri Sarju Prasad who, on the fateful day, was driving a bicycle and was hit by a vehicle and died on the spot.

15. From the statement of the witnesses, it emerges that the vehicle involved in the accident was a gas tanker (internal page 7 of the judgment). From the accident inspection report, which is on record, it has been indicated that the vehicle was a gas tanker.

16. Section 14 of the Act, 1988 reads as under:- "14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles. - (1) A learners licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be effective for a period of six months from the date of issue of the licence . (2) A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall,- (a) in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of [five years]: [Provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of three years and renewal thereof shall be subject to such conditions as the Central Government may prescribe; and] ] [(b) in the case of any other licence, subject to such conditions as the Central Government may prescribe, if the person obtaining the licence, either originally or on renewal thereof, - (i) has not attained the age of thirty years on the date of issue or, renewal thereof, be effective until the date on which such person attains the age of forty years; or (ii) has attained the age of thirty years but has not attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or, renewal thereof, be effective for a period of ten years from the date of such issue or renewal; or (iii) has attained the age of fifty years but has not attained the age of fifty-five years on the date of issue or, renewal thereof, be effective until the date on which such person attains the age of sixty years; or (iv) has attained the age of fifty-five years on the date of issue or as the case may be, renewal thereof, be effective for a period of five years from the date of such issue or renewal."]

17. Rules 9 of the Rules, 1989 reads as under: “9. [ Educational qualifications for drivers of goods carriages carrying dangerous or hazardous goods]- [(1) One year from the date of commencement of Central Motor Vehicles(Amendment) Rules, 1993, 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 license to drive a transport vehicle, also has the ability to read and write at least one Indian language out of those specified in the [VIII] Schedule of the Constitution and English and also possess a certificate of having successfully passed a course consisting of following syllabus and periodicity connected with the transport of such goods.] Period of training 3 days Place of training At any institute recognized by the State Government Syllabus - A. Defensive driving Questionnaire Cause of accidents Accidents, statistics Driver’s personal fitness Car condition Braking distance Highway driving Road/Pedestrian crossing Railway crossing Adapting to weather Head-on collision Read-end collision Night driving Films and discussions B. Advanced driving skills and training (i)Discussion Before starting Duration of training for A & B -1st and 2nd day. Check list outside/below/near vehicle product side inside vehicle During driving correct speed/gear Before stopping After stopping Night driving signaling lane control overtaking/giving side speed limit/safe distance driving on slopes Safe stopping place, signaling, road width, condition preventing vehicle movement wheel clocks vehicle attendance mandatory lighting requirements. Headlamp alignment. Use of dipped beam. Duration of training for (C) Third day. (ii) Field test/training 1 driver at a time C. Product safety UN Panel Product information UN classification Hazchem code Toxicity, flammability, other definitions Tremcards CIS/MSDS Importance of temperature pressure, level. Explosive limits Knowledge about equipment Emergency procedure Communication Spillage handling Use of PPE Fire fighting First Aid Toxic release control Protection of wells, rivers, lakes, etc. Use of protective equipment Knowledge about valves, etc. (2) The holder of a driving license possessing the minimum educational qualification or the certificate referred to in sub-rule (1), shall make an application in writing on a plain paper along with his driving license and the relevant certificate to the licensing authority in whose jurisdiction here sides for making necessary entries in his driving license and if the driving license is in Form 7, the application shall be accompanied by the fee [as specified in the Table in rule 32] (3) The licensing authority, on receipt of the application referred to in sub-rule (2), shall make an endorsement in the driving license of the applicant to the effect that he is authorised to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life. (4) A licensing authority other than the original licensing authority making any such endorsement shall communicate the fact to the original licensing authority.

18. From a perusal of the Section 14 of the Act, 1988, it emerges that the same pertains to currency of licences to drive motor vehicles. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act, 1988 provides that a driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle be effective for a period of 5 years provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of 3 years.

19. Rule 9 of the Rules, 1989 provides for a minimum training and language comprehension required for driver of the good carriages carrying dangerous or hazardous goods.

20. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1989 provides that a licensing authority shall make an endorsement in the driving licence of the applicant to the effect that he is authorised to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous and hazardous nature to human life.

21. From the licence that was filed before the learned Tribunal by the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident, it appears that there is no endorsement on the licence of the licence holder being authorised to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous and hazardous nature to human life. Both from the statement of the witnesses before the learned Tribunal as well as from the accident inspection report, it emerges that the vehicle involved in the accident was a gas tanker and thus, the vehicle would fall within an ambit of being a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life.

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.”

23. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is thus apparent that the accident had occurred from the offending vehicle, which was a gas tanker, and the driver of the said vehicle did not have an effective and valid driving licence on the date of the accident as the driving license of the driver did not bear an endorsement of driving a dangerous and hazardous vehicle and in fact the vehicle from which the accident occurred was a gas tanker (dangerous and hazardous vehicle) and as such, the learned Tribunal should have given a right of recovery to the insurance company from the owner / driver of the vehicle.

24. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award of the learned Tribunal dated 27.02.2013 is modified to the extent that the insurance company would have a right of recovery against the owner / driver of the vehicle.

25. The statutory amount under deposit before this Court be remitted to the learned trial court within two weeks as per rules.

26. The amount under deposit shall be released by the learned Tribunal in favour of the claimants upon an application being filed in this regard by the claimants.

27. Learned Tribunal shall inform the claimants about this order within two weeks of the certified copy of this order being received by it.

28. Let the trial court record be returned.

29. The office shall inform the learned Tribunal about this order within two weeks from today. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 S. Shivhare SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench