The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the driver to have the endorsement to ply a vehicle carrying hazardous goods and the lack of evidence on this aspect, influencing the court's decision to deny recovery rights to the insurer against the owner of the vehicle.

SUNIL GAUR, J.

1. The above captioned four appeals relate to a vehicular accident which took place on 20th May, 2011 in which Deepak and Rameshwar had sustained fatal injuries while Neeraj and Shivraj had suffered grievous injuries. Vide separate Awards of even date i.e. 11th May, 2017, compensation has been granted to the respondents-Claimants and Injured by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”).

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the above captioned four appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. In the above captioned first appeal, the challenge is to impugned Award, vide which the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 1,57,931/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to respondent/Injured-Neeraj on account of grievous injury sustained by him in this vehicular accident. In the above captioned second appeal, the challenge is to grant of compensation of Rs. 76,993/- with interest @ 9% p.a. by the Tribunal to respondent/Injured-Shivraj on account of the injuries sustained by him in this accident. The above captioned third appeal questions impugned Award vide which compensation of Rs. 13,61,944/- with interest @ 9% p.a. has been granted by the Tribunal to legal heirs of Deepak on account of fatal injuries sustained by him in this vehicular accident. In the above captioned fourth appeal, the challenge is to grant compensation of Rs. 11,59,768/- with interest @ 9% p.a. by the Tribunal to legal heirs of Rameshwar, who had died due to injuries sustained in this accident.

4. The factual background of these appeals, as noticed in the impugned Award, is as under:-

“As per the case of petitioner, on 20.05.2011 at about 3:15 PM petitioner Neeraj was sitting in the vehicle bearing registration No. UP 12T 4797 (Swaraj Mazda) being the helper and Late Deepak was driving the vehicle and other helpers Shivraj & Rameshwar were also travelling as helpers. When their vehicle reached at Dhola Mazra Power House, G.T. Road, Near Shahabad, Distt. Kurukshetra, Haryana, a gas tanker bearing registration No. HR 29GA 3111 which was going ahead of victims vehicle driven by respondent no. 1 Rajinder in a rash and negligent manner suddenly applied the emergency brakes. As a result thereof victims vehicle hit against the same and overturned. All the occupants of Swaraj Mazda sustained injuries and they were rushed to CHC Hospital, Shahbad, Haryana, where his MLC was prepared. FIR No. 141/11 U/s 279/337/304A IPC was registered at PS Shahbad, Distt. Kurukshetra, Haryana.

Respondent No. 1 was driver, respondent no. 2/owner and respondent no. 3/ the insurer of the offending vehicle.”

5. To render the impugned Award, the Tribunal has relied upon evidence of legal heirs of deceased and Injured persons and the other evidence on record. On the strength of evidence recorded, impugned Award has been rendered.

6. Learned counsel for appellant-Owner of the insured tanker in question, assails the impugned award on the liability aspect. It is submitted that merely because there was no endorsement on the driving licence of Rajinder to the effect that he was permitted to drive hazardous vehicle, would not justify putting of liability upon the appellant. It is submitted that Mohd. Shabir was the driver and Rajinder was the Assistant Driver and that after this accident, main driver-Mohd. Shabir had left the job and he is not traceable. Reliance is placed upon Supreme Court’s decisions in S. Iyyapan vs. United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. (2013) 7 SCC 62 and Kulwant Singh & Others vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2015) 2 SCC 186 to submit that the liability to pay the awarded compensation is of respondent-The New India Assurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Insurer) and not of appellant-Owner of the Insured vehicle.

7. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurer supports the impugned award and submits that there is no infirmity in th