The lack of endorsement on the driver's licence to carry hazardous substances constituted a breach of policy of insurance, relieving the insurance company from liability.

Tashi Rabstan, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 13.10.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (for short 'Tribunal') whereby a total compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been awarded in favour of claimant-respondent No. 1 herein, on account of injuries suffered by him in a vehicular accident. An interest @ 7.5% p.a. has also been awarded on the awarded amount of compensation. Liability of paying the compensation has been foisted on the appellant-insurance company with whom the offending Tanker was insured.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

3. The claimant, at the ill-fated time, was travelling on his scooter and was going to his village. When he reached near District Hospital, Kathua, a rashly and neqligently driver of Tanker bearing registration No. HR-38-6104 is stated to have hit his scooter by coming to the wrong side, as a result whereof, he suffered fracture of right lower leg, fracture of right temporal bone and multiple fracture of right frontal lobe and other injuries on his scalp and nose.

4. Claimant lodged the claim for compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). Learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment and award found that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending Tanker, respondent No.3 here, and awarded compensation in favour of the claimant under the following heads:

(i) Medical expenses : Rs, 50.000/-

(ii)Transportation charges : Rs. 20,000/-

(iii) Expenses on attendant : Rs. 10,000/-

(iv) Pain and suffering : Rs. 30,000/-

(v) Loss of amentie is of life : Rs. 40.000/-

Total : Rs.1,50,000/-

5. The appellant-Insurance company assails the impugned judgment and award inter alia on the grounds, firstly that the driver of the offending Tanker did not possess a valid licence authorizing him to drive the offending vehicle, so breach of a condition of policy of insurance was duly proved and liability to pay the compensation should not have been foisted on the insurance company and secondly, that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is much on higher side.

6. Mr. Vishnu Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant while referring to the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue No. 4, submitted that the offending Tanker was being used for carrying inflammable gas, which is a hazardous substance and that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid effective driving licence at the time of accident as the same was not endorsed by Competent Authority for driving vehicles carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature. He also submitted that the Tribunal also ignored the admission of respondent No. 2 that his LPG gas tanker carrying LPG Gas is admittedly of hazardous nature and the driving licence of his driver on the day of accident did not carry endorsement by Competent Authority to drive vehicle carrying hazardous goods. Thus, the finding of the Issue No. 4 is contrary to the evidence on record and to the provisions of M. V. Act, 1988.

7. In support of his assertion, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance company has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Nagamani & Anr. v. Singaravelu & Anr., 2009 (3) CTC 483. The Apex Court in the judgment (supra) held as under:

".......Suffice it to point out for this Court that the offending vehicle lorry driver Elayasamy was not in possession of a licence/endorsement to drive the hazardous goods vehicle and that he was only possessed of a licence to drive heavy goods vehicle with effect from 30-10-1991 and therefore, there was a violation of policy condition and as such, the Tribunal was quite correct in exonerating the second respondent/Insurance Company from its liability to pay..................."

8. Learned Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence, decided the issue No. 4 in favour of the claimant and against respondents there, by hold