The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a separate endorsement on the driving license to drive vehicles containing hazardous substances, and the burden of proof on the Insurance Company to establish the absence of such endorsement.

JUDGMENT :

Though this appeal is listed for admission today, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for appellant/Insurance Company and learned counsel appearing for respondents/claimants, the same is taken up for final disposal.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the Judgment and Award dated 25.02.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.611/2011 by the Principal MACT., & Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (‘the Tribunal’ for short), questioning the liability fastened on the Insurance Company.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the claimants have made the claim petition before the Tribunal that the deceased was succumbed to the injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on 22.11.2010 at about 3:20 p.m, on the left side of Richmond road, near Shoolay Circle, opposite to Cathedral P.U. College main road, Bengaluru, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Petrol Tanker bearing registration No.KA-01-B-3886.

4. The Insurance Company in the written statement took the defense that the driver of the said vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident.

5. The claimants in order to substantiate their claim, they have examined the second claimant as P.W.1 and also examined one witness as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P19. On the other hand, respondent has examined one witness as RW.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 to R4.

6. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record, allowed the claim petition of the petitioners in part granting compensation of Rs.5,24,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization. Hence, the present appeal is filed before this Court questioning the finding given by the Tribunal in respect of issue No.2 in coming to the conclusion that the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would vehemently contend that the Tribunal has committed an error in relying upon the judgment of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad reported in 2012 ACJ 2842. The learned counsel would submit that this Court in Kalaburagi Bench in MFA No.30081/2011 vide Judgment dated 16.12.2013 held that if the driver is not having the endorsement to drive the hazardous vehicle, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

8. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that the owner was placed ex-parte and this Court also issued notice against the respondent/owner and in both the Courts he did not appear and contest the matter and in the absence of endorsement to drive the hazardous goods vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay the compensation.

9. The claimants were also served and they also not appeared before this Court.

10. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company and on perusal of the grounds urged in the appeal and the materials available on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are:

(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation?

(ii) What order?

Point Nos.(i) & (ii):

11. In keeping the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court has to re-appreciate the material available on record. The vehicle involved in the accident is a Petrol Tanker. No doubt, the Petrol Tanker is a hazardous vehicle to carry the hazardous material. The question is whether the driver was having the driving licence. But in the case on hand, the driver had no such endorsement to drive the vehicle. RW.1, who has been examined before the Tribunal also, reiterated the same, but he has produced the Driving Licence Extract and also produced the letter issued to the Insurer and the policy documents. The history sheet of driver Venkatesh S/o V