Insurance company is not liable for compensation when driver lacks valid endorsement for hazardous goods transport, reversing Claims Tribunal's decision.

1. Appellant insurance company has preferred this appeal under S.173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') challenging award dated 20.9.2012 passed by the learned 4th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 126 of 2011 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part, awarded an amount of Rs. 12,18,660 as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent and fastened liability upon appellant insurance company to pay compensation.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 20.2.2010 at about 1.15 p.m. in the afternoon, non - applicant No. 1, driver of tractor - tanker bearing registration No. GJ 6 - Y 9518 (for short 'the offending vehicle') drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed rear side of motor cycle bearing registration No. CG 09 - D 1901 near a gurudwara situated within Police Station Supela, District Bhilai, resultantly, Mahesh Sharma, driver of motor cycle, fell down and sustained grievous injuries on various parts of the body including head and succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. Report of accident was lodged in Police Station Supela, District Durg based on which crime bearing No. 112/10 was registered against driver of offending vehicle for commission of offence punishable under S.304 - A of Indian Penal Code.

3. Claimants - respondent Nos. 1 to 5, who are wife, 2 sons and old parents of deceased respectively, filed a claim application before the Claims Tribunal seeking total compensation of Rs. 22,02,000 on account of death of said Mahesh Sharma in a road accident. It was pleaded in the claim application that on the date of accident, deceased was aged about 39 years; he was posted as a teacher in New Government Higher Secondary School, Kawardha and getting monthly salary of Rs. 8,332.

4. Non - applicant Nos. 1 and 2 did not appear before Claims Tribunal to contest the case, therefore, they were proceeded ex parte.

5. Non - applicant No. 3 - appellant herein appeared before the Claims Tribunal and filed its written statement mentioning that accident was outcome of negligence on the part of motorcyclist. In alternate, plea of contributory negligence was raised by non - applicant No. 3. It was also pleaded that non - applicant No. 1 - driver was not having special endorsement on his driving licence permitting him to drive offending vehicle, which was a goods carriage for carrying dangerous and hazardous substance, and as such, there was breach of condition of insurance policy, therefore, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured.

6. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, the Claims Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that there was no element of contributory negligence on the part of motorcyclist, i.e., deceased, and it is non - applicant No. 1 - respondent No. 6 herein alone who, by driving offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, had caused the accident, which has resulted in death of Mahesh Sharma. Consequently, the Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 12,18,660 as compensation and saddled appellant insurance company with the liability to satisfy the award on the ground that there was no breach of any of the conditions of insurance policy.

7. Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel representing appellant insurance company, submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in holding appellant insurance company liable to indemnify the insured, ignoring the fact that on the date of accident non - applicant No. 1 - driver was