An insurance company can only evade liability if the driver lacked proper licensing or endorsement for the vehicle type; the court specified liability rules and recovery rights.

1. Heard Mr. Tarun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Firoz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the claimants - respondent Nos. 5 and 6, and Mr. Jagjit Singh Sodhi, learned counsel for the claimants - respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

2. The insurance company, as appellant, has instituted the aforesaid appeal against the award dated 18.11.2021 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (South), Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 564 of 2017 whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 18,69,280 along with 7 per cent interest from the date of the application till the date of payment in favour of the claimants - respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and the said award has been passed against the insurance company.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the award has raised a solitary contention. The thrust of the arguments is that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending gas tanker bearing No. UP 17 - AT 1890, however, though no appeal has been preferred by the owner and the driver regarding the aforesaid finding but the insurance company has escalated the matter on the premise that the driver of the offending gas tanker did not have a valid and effective driving licence, inasmuch as, on the date of accident, i.e., 29.7.2017, the driver of the aforesaid gas tanker, namely, Rajesh Kumar did not have the requisite endorsement on his driving licence authorising him to drive a transport vehicle containing hazardous goods.

4. It is further submitted that a specific issue was framed by the Tribunal to the effect whether the driver of the said tanker had a valid and effective driving licence and while answering the same, the Tribunal held that the driver of the aforesaid tanker had a valid licence and fastened the liability on the insurance company. It was of the view that since the accident did not occur on account of any leakage or as a direct consequence of a hazardous good itself contained in the said tanker, therefore, the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability.

5. It is further urged that the Tribunal completely misdirected itself, inasmuch as it did not consider that the driver did not have the requisite endorsement on his licence regarding the authorisation to drive a transport vehicle carrying hazardous goods and in absence of any such endorsement, it cannot be said that the driver was authorised, hence, this being contrary to the relevant R.9 (3) of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 read with S.14 (2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it would indicate that the driver was not authorised which in effect amounts to driving the vehicle without an authority and as such the insurance company could not be fastened with the aforesaid liability and moreover the Tribunal has further erred in not even granting the recovery rights which has resulted in sheer miscarriage of justice.

6. Per contra, Mr. Firoz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, submits that the vehicle in question was duly insured and the driver had a valid driving licence and also noticing the fact that the accident occurred and the death was not on account of the use or consequence of the hazardous goods, therefore, it cannot be said that the view taken by the Tribunal was incorrect. It is also submitted that the driving licence of the respondent No. 5 was valid and subsisting, accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. The learned counsel for the claimants - respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has submitted that even though the award has been passed in favour of the claimants - respondent Nos. 1 to 4, yet because of the subsisting interim order passed in the appeal date