The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability if the driver did not possess the necessary endorsement to drive the vehicle carrying hazardous goods.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri R.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri J.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents no.1, 2 and 3.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act of 1988) against the judgment and award dated 28.07.2006 passed by A.D.J. (Court No.4)/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratapgarh in M.A.C.P. No.8/1999, wherein a sum of Rs.4,87,000/-along with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of its actual payment has been passed in favour of the claimants-respondents no.1, 2 and 3.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has erred in failing to notice that the offending vehicle involved in the accident was a tanker bearing No. MWV/5123. It is urged that the driver of the aforesaid tanker namely Sadashiv Sakpal did not have the requisite endorsement to drive the aforesaid tanker. It is urged that though he had a licence to drive heavy motor vehicles, but insofar as the tankers are concerned, there are special provisions in the Act of 1989 which requires the driver to get the said endorsement made on his licence entitling him to drive a tanker carrying hazardous goods. The said endorsement is valid on year to year basis whereas the endorsement insofar as the heavy motor vehicle is concerned, the same is for three years.

4. It is submitted that a copy of the licence was placed on the record by the claimants-respondents which clearly established the aforesaid position, however, while recording a finding relating to issue no.3, the Tribunal has held that there is nothing on record to indicate that the vehicle in question was being driven contrary to the terms of policy.

5. It is this limited plea which is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant and on the strength thereof, it is urged that the amount if any awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be paid by the owner of the tanker and the insurance company cannot be fastened with the liability as the tanker was clearly being driven contrary to the terms of the policy.

6. In support of his submission, Shri R.C. Sharma has relied upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gautam Filling Station vs. Munnu Singh & Anr., 2016 (34) LCD 1669 and a decision of the Division Bench in the case of Sibbal Singh vs. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., F.A.F.O. No.378/2010, decided on 13.08.2012.

7. Shri J.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents, on the other hand, contended that even though the driver of the offending tanker did not have an endorsement to drive the tanker containing hazardous goods, but the fact remains that the manner in which the accident had occurred has nothing to do with the fact that the driver was not having the requisite endorsement to drive the aforesaid category of vehicle.

8. He has further submitted that a number of tankers were parked in the garage and the deceased was also present in the garage where he had taken his tanker for repairs. In between two tankers, in the open space, the deceased was talking to his friend, however, during the said conversation, the offending tanker was reversed by its driver which caused the accident which led the deceased to suffer grievous injuries and he was referred to a hospital and during his treatment, he expired.

9. In this view of the matter, it is submitted that in fact the tanker was not being plied on the road. Thus, the manner in which, the accident has occurred, it has no bearing with the fact whether the endorsement of driving a vehicle carrying hazardous goods had any relevance and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly observed that the tanker was not being driven against the policy conditions and has passed the award which requires no interference from this Court.

10. In support of his submissions, he relies upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. S