High Court · 2025

3. Sri Rajesh Trivedi, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the claimants-respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Despite due service of notice, there has been no representation or appearance on behalf of respondent No.3. In view of the fact that this appeal originates from the year 2011 and the record is presently available before this Court, with the matter being ripe for final adjudication, the Court has accordingly proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the parties.

4. Sri Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the award dated 14.01.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal")/Special Judge (Ayurved Scam Matter)/Additional District Judge, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 250 of 2007, whereby, in a death case, a sum of Rs.1,18,000/- has been awarded in favour of claimants-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 along with 5% simple interest.

5. Attacking the award, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the offending vehicle in question was a tanker carrying hazardous goods. This was noticed by the Tribunal; however, while dealing with Issue Nos. 2 and 3, the Tribunal erred in failing to take note of the fact that the driver of the said tanker did not possess a valid and subsisting licence, inasmuch as, though he had a licence for driving a heavy motor vehicle, but there was no endorsement appended in terms of Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which mandates a driver of a tanker carrying hazardous goods to have the requisite endorsement. In the absence of the aforesaid endorsement, even though the tanker was duly insured, the liability would not be on the insurance company, since the owner had permitted the tanker to be used in violation of the policy condition, coupled with the fact that the driver did not possess the necessary endorsement. Hence, it being a case of an incorrect licence, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

6. It has also been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has further erred in not making the appropriate deduction, inasmuch as the deceased was an unmarried lady and in such cases, the deduction should have been 50%, whereas the Tribunal has only made a deduction of 1/3rd and in such circumstances also, the award needs to be modified.

7. Sri Trivedi, learned counsel for the claimants-respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that insofar as the issue of the driving licence is concerned, it does not impact the claimants. However, as far as the deduction is concerned, it is urged that since the deceased was an unmarried lady and both her parents were dependent on her, she being the breadwinner, the deduction in the given facts and circumstances is appropriate. Even otherwise, a meagre amount has been awarded. Consequently, the amount as awarded does not require any modification and the appeal should be dismissed.

8. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

9. The issue relating to the driving licence may not detain this Court for long, for the reason that it is an admitted case that the vehicle in question is a tanker carrying hazardous goods (petrol/diesel). This aspect regarding the endorsement on the driving licence has been considered in detail by this Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Sheela and Others : 2023 (3) T.A.C. 222 (All.) and very recently, the Apex Court in M/s Chatha Service Station vs. Lalmati Devi and Others : 2025 SCC Online SC 756 has also reiterated the aforesaid position that if the driver of a tanker carrying hazardous goods does not have the requisite endorsement in terms of Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, it would amount to a violation of the policy condition.

10. Accordingly, to that extent, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant has substance.

11. Considering the other issues regarding the deduction made by the Tribunal, this Court finds that, even if the deduction of 50% is made as suggested by the counsel for the appellant, the fact remains that certain aspects regarding future prospects and grants on account of conventional heads have not been appropriately awarded.

12. Be that as it may, since there is no cross-appeal or cross- objections filed on behalf of the claimants and despite the appeal is pending before this Court since 2011, this Court finds that the amount awarded does not require any interference.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The award dated 14.01.2011 passed in Claim Petition No. 250 of 2007 is modified to the extent that the amount awarded shall first be paid by the Insurance Company, who shall have the right to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, i.e., respondent No. 3 herein. With the aforesaid modification of the award, no further relief is warranted.

14. Accordingly, all other findings recorded by the Tribunal are affirmed. Any amount deposited by the Insurance Company before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal to be released in favour of the claimants and any shortfall with up-to-date interest shall also be paid to the claimants in terms of the award within sixty days from today, with liberty to the appellant to recover the same from respondent No. 3.

15. With the aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

16. Let the record of the Tribunal be returned forthwith. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Shubhankar (Jaspreet Singh, J.) SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. Sri Rajesh Trivedi, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the claimants-respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Despite due service of notice, there has been no representation or appearance on behalf of respondent No.3. In view of the fact that this appeal originates from the year 2011 and the record is presently available before this Court, with the matter being ripe for final adjudication, the Court has accordingly proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the parties.

4. Sri Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the award dated 14.01.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal")/Special Judge (Ayurved Scam Matter)/Additional District Judge, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 250 of 2007, whereby, in a death case, a sum of Rs.1,18,000/- has been awarded in favour of claimants-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 along with 5% simple interest.

5. Attacking the award, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the offending vehicle in question was a tanker carrying hazardous goods. This was noticed by the Tribunal; however, while dealing with Issue Nos. 2 and 3, the Tribunal erred in failing to take note of the fact that the driver of the said tanker did not possess a valid and subsisting licence, inasmuch as, though he had a licence for driving a heavy motor vehicle, but there was no endorsement appended in terms of Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which mandates a driver of a tanker carrying hazardous goods to have the requisite endorsement. In the absence of the aforesaid endorsement, even though the tanker was duly insured, the liability would not be on the insurance company, since the owner had permitted the tanker to be used in violation of the policy condition, coupled with the fact that the driver did not possess the necessary endorsement. Hence, it being a case of an incorrect licence, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

6. It has also been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has further erred in not making the appropriate deduction, inasmuch as the deceased was an unmarried lady and in such cases, the deduction should have been 50%, whereas the Tribunal has only made a deduction of 1/3rd and in such circumstances also, the award needs to be modified.

7. Sri Trivedi, learned counsel for the claimants-respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that insofar as the issue of the driving licence is concerned, it does not impact the claimants. However, as far as the deduction is concerned, it is urged that since the deceased was an unmarried lady and both her parents were dependent on her, she being the breadwinner, the deduction in the given facts and circumstances is appropriate. Even otherwise, a meagre amount has been awarded. Consequently, the amount as awarded does not require any modification and the appeal should be dismissed.

8. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

9. The issue relating to the driving licence may not detain this Court for long, for the reason that it is an admitted case that the vehicle in question is a tanker carrying hazardous goods (petrol/diesel). This aspect regarding the endorsement on the driving licence has been considered in detail by this Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Sheela and Others : 2023 (3) T.A.C. 222 (All.) and very recently, the Apex Court in M/s Chatha Service Station vs. Lalmati Devi and Others : 2025 SCC Online SC 756 has also reiterated the aforesaid position that if the driver of a tanker carrying hazardous goods does not have the requisite endorsement in terms of Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, it would amount to a violation of the policy condition.

10. Accordingly, to that extent, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant has substance.

11. Considering the other issues regarding the deduction made by the Tribunal, this Court finds that, even if the deduction of 50% is made as suggested by the counsel for the appellant, the fact remains that certain aspects regarding future prospects and grants on account of conventional heads have not been appropriately awarded.

12. Be that as it may, since there is no cross-appeal or cross- objections filed on behalf of the claimants and despite the appeal is pending before this Court since 2011, this Court finds that the amount awarded does not require any interference.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The award dated 14.01.2011 passed in Claim Petition No. 250 of 2007 is modified to the extent that the amount awarded shall first be paid by the Insurance Company, who shall have the right to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, i.e., respondent No. 3 herein. With the aforesaid modification of the award, no further relief is warranted.

14. Accordingly, all other findings recorded by the Tribunal are affirmed. Any amount deposited by the Insurance Company before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal to be released in favour of the claimants and any shortfall with up-to-date interest shall also be paid to the claimants in terms of the award within sixty days from today, with liberty to the appellant to recover the same from respondent No. 3.

15. With the aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

16. Let the record of the Tribunal be returned forthwith. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Shubhankar (Jaspreet Singh, J.) SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench