The fulfillment of the special training requirement for driving a vehicle meant for transportation of hazardous goods is crucial, and recovery rights of insurers may be rejected based on this fulfillment.

1. On 17.02.2012, Shankar Mittal with his wife Sonia Mittal and minor son Amogh Mittal were going in a car bearing registration no. HR 72 0051 driven by the former. The car came to be involved in a motor vehicular accident in the area of police station Kapashera, New Delhi, it being on account of collision against motor vehicle described as Tanker bearing registration no. UP 53BT 7086. All the three persons in the car suffered injuries, Shankar Mittal dying in the consequence. Three accident claim cases came to be instituted, one (MACP 478/2014) seeking compensation on account of death of Shankar Mittal and the others (MACP No. 475 and 552/2014) on account of injuries suffered by Amogh Mittal and Sonia Mittal respectively. The cases resulted in inquiry and a common judgment dated 30.08.2016 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to negligent driving of the tanker by Mithlesh Kumar Upadhyaya (respondent in these appeals) hereinafter referred to as “the driver of the offending vehicle”. The tanker was admittedly registered in the name of India tankers Pvt. Ltd. (another respondent in these appeals) hereinafter referred to as “the registered owner of the offending vehicle”, the appellant (insurer) admittedly being the insurance company which had issued an insurance policy covering third party risk in respect of the tanker for the period in question.

2. During the course of inquiry, the insurer had raised the plea that the tanker was meant for carrying hazardous goods and, therefore, the driving licence of its driver should have necessary endorsement in terms of requirement of Section 14 (2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rules 9 (d) and 132 of Central Motor Rules, 1989. The parties led evidence in the course of which it was proved that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving licence for heavy goods vehicle/heavy transport vehicle for the period in question and that he also possessed the training certificate (Ex.R2W1/5) for safe transportation of hazardous goods, it being valid for the period 13.01.2012 to 12.01.2013. The tribunal rejected the contention of the insurance company about the breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy which was essentially based on the fact that there was no formal endorsement about such training or competence, in terms of the statutory requirements, on the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle.

3. In the case of claim arising out of death of Shankar Mittal, the tribunal awarded total compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,06,51,800/-, the said amount inclusive of Rs. 1,02,76,800/- calculated towards loss of dependency on the basis of conclusion reached that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,42,300/- per annum from his business in the name of Shankar Motors, reference in this context being made to the income-tax returns (ITRs) for the assessment years 2011-2012 and 2012-13, last of such ITRs reflecting such level of increase.

4. By the appeals at hand, the insurance company submits that the conclusion of the tribunal denying to it exoneration or recovery rights on the basis of breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy is erroneous as the requirement of formal endorsement is requisite and could not have been given a go by. Reliance is placed on decision of this Court dated 18.01.2016 in MAC Appeal No. 798/2010 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ashpal & Ors. and of learned Single Judge of the High Court of Allahbad (Lucknow Bench) dated 05.10.2016 in FAFO Nos. 20-21/2016 Krishna Kumar & Ors. vs. United Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. In the case of award on account of death of Shankar Mittal, the calculation of loss of dependency on the basis of the last two ITRs for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 is also questioned, it being pointed out that these ITRs were filed post death of the person in question and that the tribunal has ignored the ITRs for the two immedia