$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 45/2026 & CM APPL. 2958/2026 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant Through: Mr. Aditya Kumar and Ms. Ila Nath, Advs. versus SURINDER YADAV @ SURENDER YADAV & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Nemo.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 16.01.2026 CM APPL. 2957/2026 & CM APPL. 2959/2026 (Exemptions

1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Applications stand disposed of, accordingly.

MAC.APP. 45/2026 along with CM APPL. 2958/2026 (Stay

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company seeking a right to recover from the driver/owner of the vehicle pursuant to the judgment and award dated 30^th October 2025, passed by the MACT, West District, Tis Hazari in Claim Petition No.376/2023.

2. The appellant was the Insurer of the vehicle bearing No. DL-1GC- 6615, which was involved in an accident on 17^th January 2023. The said vehicle was owned by respondent no.3 and driven by respondent no.2, which allegedly jumped a red light and hit respondent no.1’s auto.

3. The DAR was filed on 20^th May 2023, and an FIR No.32/2023 was registered.

4. Verification confirmed that respondent no.2 held the licence; the mandatory endorsement under Rule 9(3) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules for driving hazardous goods vehicle was not valid. The offending vehicle being an oil tanker, the issue of endorsement would become important, as per Mr. Aditya Kumar, Counsel for the appellant.

5. This issue was considered by the impugned judgment and has been discussed in paragraphs 12.1-12.5 of the impugned award.

6. On the basis that no evidence was led by the Insurance Company to show that the said oil tanker was filled with oil, and in view of testimony of R2W1, who stated in this evidence that the offending vehicle was empty at the time of the accident and was not carrying any hazardous material, the impugned judgment relied upon the decision of this Court in Amit Sharma v. New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors. 2025:DHC:3878 in judgment delivered on 16^th May 2025, to hold that lack of endorsement would not have any impact.

7. Mr. Aditya Kumar, Counsel for the appellant, states that the judgment in Amit Sharma (supra) has since been challenged in SLP No.24420/2025 before the Supreme Court and notice has been issued on limited to the issue of pay and recovery.

8. Aside from that, he relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Chatha Service Limited v. Lalmati Devi & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 756, wherein, in paragraph 12, the Supreme Court observed as under:

“12. We have to also emphasise that in the present case, the tanker was carrying oil; for which it is intended, while the accident occurred. We hasten to add that we may not be misunderstood as agreeing to the corollary to the argument that a licence holder without the endorsement under Rule 9, could drive an empty goods vehicle intended to carry hazardous goods, designed specifically for that purpose. The breach of non-compliance of the statutory requirement to undergo a training course to upskill the driving efficiency and product safety cannot be brushed aside as a technical breach not contributing to the accident.”

(emphasis added)

9. On this basis, he states that the Supreme Court has recorded a categorical opinion that even if the vehicle meant to carry hazardous goods is not carrying such goods at relevant time, that could not take away from the necessity for a requisite endorsement of the driver under Rule 9 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules.

10. He also relies on the decision of this Court in Mangla Goods Carrier v. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5755, wherein, in paragraphs 15 and 16, having considered the previous decision in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Samiuddin & Ors. 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10534, the Court held that the endorsement was necessary.

11. On this basis, the Insurance Company seeks a right to recover, which has not been provided by the impugned award.

12.