JUDGMENT

1. The present appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 24.12.2022 (hereafter ‘impugned award’) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MACP No. 126/2019, whereby compensation for a sum of ₹35,84,328/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization was awarded in favour of the claimants, with the right of recovery granted to the insurer — New India Assurance Co. Ltd. — against the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

2. While MAC.APP. 211/2023 has been filed by the owner of the offending vehicle, namely Amit Sharma, MAC.APP. 212/2023 has been preferred by the driver, Tufani Yadav. Both appellants assail the impugned direction allowing recovery rights to the insurer, contending that the said finding is erroneous in law and on facts, as the driver was duly qualified and competent to operate the vehicle in question.

3. Briefly stated, on 01.06.2018, the deceased Neeraj Kumar, while travelling on his motorcycle, met with a fatal accident involving a goods carriage bearing registration no. DL-1LN-9032, driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner by appellant Tufani Yadav and owned by appellant Amit Sharma. The said vehicle was found to be insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd./ Respondent at the relevant time.

4. The claim petition was filed by the widow, minor son, and parents of the deceased under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. After appreciation of evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of ₹35,84,328/- with interest @ 6% p.a. and held the insurer liable to pay the compensation in the first instance with the liberty to recover the same from the driver and owner of the vehicle on the ground that the driver lacked the requisite endorsement for transporting hazardous goods as mandated under Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal gravely erred in permitting the respondent–insurance company to recover the awarded compensation from the appellants on the ground of violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is submitted that no such violation is made out on the record that would justify the grant of recovery rights in favour of the insurer. The finding of the learned Tribunal is based solely on the absence of an endorsement on the driving license of the appellant–driver under Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, despite there being no evidence to establish a willful or conscious breach on the part of the insured.

6. He contended that the driver of the offending vehicle, appellant Tufani Yadav, had duly undergone the requisite training for transportation of hazardous goods and was operating the vehicle under the employment of the appellant–owner in the normal course of his duties. It is further submitted that a mere absence of endorsement on the driving license ought not to be construed as a breach sufficient to disentitle the appellants of indemnification under the policy, particularly when no nexus has been shown between the alleged infraction and the cause of the accident.

7. The learned counsel placed reliance on the Circular dated 20.04.2022 bearing no. F.DTO(HQ)/Tpt/2022/04/CD No. 075682002 issued by the Transport Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, which acknowledges that endorsements in terms of Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, had not been consistently made by the licencing authorities until that point in time. It is urged that the said circular itself clarifies that the endorsement requirement had not been strictly enforced prior to its issuance, and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the driver was disqualified or that the insured had violated any statutory obligation.

8. It is further argued that in the absence of any evidence to show that the driver was either incompetent or untrained to drive the vehicle in q