Accident – License – Goods carriage for transportation of hazardous and dangerous goods – At the time of engaging driver, Owner failed to discharge his responsibility that necessary endorsement on license was there – Insurance Company not liable.

Mrs. Anita Chaudhry, J.:-:- These are two appeals one filed by the owner and driver aggrieved by the liability placed upon them, the other appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement

2. Hardeep Singh had sustained injuries in an accident which occurred on 18.5.2012. He was returning from duty from P.S.City Sunam and was driving home in his Alto Car. His friend Palwinder Singh was with him. At about 5.15 P.M. when they were within the village limits, an oil tanker came from the front side and hit the car by coming to the wrong side. The claimant suffered injuries on his face, shoulder and chest. The car was also damaged. The Tribunal on examination of the evidence held the driver of the tanker to be responsible for the accident. The claim was allowed. The Tribunal had allowed Rs. 2,36,000/- i.e. the amount of the bills and a lumpsum amount of Rs. 20,000/- was allowed for the miscellaneous heads. The claimant had also sought compensation for the disability but the Tribunal had held that it was temporary disability of 15%. On the issue of liability, the Tribunal noted that there was no endorsement on the driving licence as was required under the rules and relying upon Nagmani and another versus Singaravelu and another, 2010 ACJ 1912 (Madras HC), it was held that the driver was driving a hazardous goods vehicle in violation of the terms of the policy and the owner and driver were also responsible to pay the amount.

3. The submission on behalf of the owner-driver is that the driver had the licence to drive LMV and HTV and the driver was driving a heavy goods vehicle and the tanker was empty and it was not carrying any hazardous goods and the insurance company had not led any evidence that it was full at the time of the accident and the onus should have been placed upon the insurance company and they were not liable to pay the compensation. It was urged that there is no classification in the Act which require any entry on the licence. Reliance was placed upon Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Mangare and others 2011(8) R.C.R. (Civil) 3041, Kanta Rani and another versus The New India Assurance Company and others FAO No. 389 of 2013 decided on 23.8.2013 and National Insurance Company Limited versus Presiding Officer and another CWP No. 6739 of 2012 decided on 20.12.2012.

4. On the other hand the submission on behalf of the insurance company was that there is a statutory requirement under Section 14(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 132(5) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 enjoins a duty upon the owner to ensure that the driver of the goods carriage carrying dangerous and hazardous goods should hold a licence as per the provisions of Rule 9. The counsel had further submitted that the licensing authority is required to make an endorsement on the driving licence to that effect that the driver was authorized to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature and the issue whether it was empty or otherwise was for the driver-owner to plead and prove and this aspect would not be relevant as the vehicle would be used for transporting an oil tanker which is a hazardous and dangerous material and as there was a violation, the Tribunal had rightly placed the burden upon the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, respectively. Reliance was placed upon Sita Devi and others versus Shri Ashwani Kumar Mahajan and others 2014(84) RCR (Civil) 28 and Nagmani and another versus Singaravelu and another, 2010 ACJ 1912.

5. The submission on behalf of the claimant in his appeal was that the claimant had suffered 15% temporary disability and he had remained in the hospital for 17 days and he had to undergo another operation and no amount had been allowed for pain and suffering or for the attendant.

6. Responding to this argument, the submission of the insurance company was that the claimant had failed to place on record the MLR and there was no evidence that the claimant had undergone any operation nor any evide