A driver lacking a valid endorsement to carry hazardous goods cannot obtain insurance coverage, constituting a breach of policy terms, therefore exonerating the insurer from liability.

JUDGMENT :

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 28.11.2017 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Central Filing No.73/2016 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon driver and owner of Truck bearing registration No.CG-07-C-1025 (for short, “offending vehicle”).

2. Brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that, on 11.06.2015 at about 5:00 a.m., deceased late Mohammad Qasim, husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimants No.2 and 3, had gone out for his morning walk. Upon reaching Ring Road near Harsagar Lake, within the territorial limits of Kotwali Police Station, Ambikapur, the vehicle in question, loaded with gas cylinders and was being driven by non-applicant No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased, resulting in the fatal accident. As a result of the impact, Mohammad Qasim sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The incident was reported to the police by Mohammad Asfaq, cousin of the deceased, who was also present at the time of occurrence and had witnessed the accident while on his morning walk. On the basis of the said report, a criminal case was registered and investigation was carried out.

3. The claimants, being the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act’) before the learned Claims Tribunal, seeking compensation on account of the untimely death of Mohammad Qasim. It was specifically pleaded that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The claimants assessed the compensation payable to them at Rs.28,90,000/- along with interest, and prayed that the said amount be recovered jointly and severally from the non-claimants (driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle).

4. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.5,10,600/- in favour of the claimants, fastening liability upon the non-claimants No.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle, jointly and severally.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants/driver and owner of the offending vehicle submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed a grave error in fastening the liability upon the owner and driver while exonerating the insurance company. It is contended that the gas cylinders in question were being transported pursuant to Government tenders from a designated depot to authorized dealers and the entire system, including training of drivers, was arranged by the Government through the Regional Transport Office and the concerned Oil Corporation. The driver was duly authorized and had undergone specific training for safe road transportation of dangerous and hazardous goods, which fact was already brought on record along with reply, affidavit and supporting documents. It is further submitted that on the date of the incident, only empty gas cylinders were loaded in the vehicle and no hazardous or inflammable goods were being transported; therefore, there was no requirement for the driver to possess a special endorsement to drive a vehicle carrying dangerous or hazardous goods. Consequently, the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant was not holding a valid licence to drive a hazardous vehicle is misconceived and contrary to law.