A driver of a vehicle registered for carrying dangerous or hazardous substances must possess the requisite endorsement in their driving license per Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, regardless of whether the vehicle was carrying such substances at the time of the accident.

(Single Bench)

Order on Board

1. Against the impugned award dated 24.09.2019 passed by the learned Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No.211/2015, the claimants have preferred MAC No. 2284 of 2019 seeking enhancement of the compensation amount, whereas the insurance company has preferred MAC No.269 of 2020 seeking exoneration from liability to pay the compensation.

2. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the appeals, they are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order.

3. Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, would submit that since the vehicle involved was a Tanker, which was carrying dangerous & hazardous substance, therefore, endorsement in the licence to that extent was required and since the driver did not have the requisite endorsement, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Chatha Service Station v. Lalmati Devi & Others¹2025 SCC OnLine SC 756. He would further submit that even though the vehicle was not carrying dangerous & hazardous substance then also the endorsement will be necessary in light of the decision of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the matter of Rajesh Singh & Anr. v. Hardeep Singh & Another²2017 SCC OnLine P&H 3261

4. Ms. Prachi Singh, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, would submit that the amount of compensation is not just and proper, therefore, it deserves to be enhanced.

5. Mr. Sanjeev Verma, learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle, would support the impugned award and submit that the appeals of the insurance company & claimants both deserve to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

Appeal of the Insurance Company i.e. MAC No.269/2020

7. Sub-Rule (3) and (4) of Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 requires that Licensing Authority, on receipt of application referred to sub-rule (2), shall make an endorsement in the driving licence of the applicant to the effect that he is authorised to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous substance. Admittedly, the vehicle was a Tanker and it was goods carrying vehicle registered for carrying dangerous/ hazardous substance and driver of the said vehicle did have licence to drive the heavy goods vehicle but did not have necessary endorsement to drive that vehicle as required by the Rules. However, the learned Claims Tribunal in light of the decision of this Court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. A. Verlaxmi ³2013 SCC OnLine Chh 272 did not found favour the plea of the insurance company and proceeded to impose liability upon the insurance company. However, in this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in Chatha Service Station (supra) may be noticed herein profitably, in which the decision of this Court in A. Verlaxmi (supra) was also noticed and it was not approved by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court and observed in para 19 as under :

“19. This raises genuine suspicion on the veracity of the certificate produced at the appellate stage. We have looked at the certificate as pointed out by the learned Counsel, a copy of which is available in the record. The document certifies the driver to have successfully completed a three-day training course between 13.01.2012 to 16.01.2012 in line with Rule 9 of the Rules. It