FAO-8253-2017(O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

FAO-8253-2017(O&M)

Date of Order: 30.01.2019

HARDEEP SINGH AND ANR

..Appellants

Versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE AND ORS

..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate,

for the appellants.

Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate,

for the Insurance Company.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)

Owner of the offending vehicle is in the appeal against the

rights of recovery given to the Insurance Company.

As per the finding of the learned Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, driver Ram Mehar was holding a valid driving license valid from

06.01.2010 to 31.07.2022 for non transport vehicle and valid from

06.01.2010 to 03.08.2017 for driving transport vehicle. The accident took

place on 22.06.2016 when he was driving a truck with 10 tyres (multi axle)

having tanker (for transporting liquid) on it. There is no evidence that the

truck, having tanker on it, was carrying any hazardous goods. Still further

failure to obtain necessary endorsement as required under sub-rule (3) of

Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 is not so fundamental to

hold that it contributed to the cause of accident.

Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a judgment

passed by a Coordinate Bench in FAO No.1210 of 2014 (National

NARESH KUMAR

2019.02.06 15:29

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

FAO-8253-2017(O&M)

-2-

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harbans Kaur and others), decided on 26.03.2018,

relevant part of the judgment is extracted as under:-

“The question that now arises would be whether such a

breach of not having obtained necessary endorsement as

required under sub-Rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Rules, is so

fundamental as to have contributed to the cause of

accident. The answer, at the outset, appears to be in the

negative. It is nobody’s case that the accident took place

because of dangerous or hazardous substance being

carried in the vehicle. On the contrary, there is no

challenge to findings of the Tribunal that the accident

occurred due to negligence in driving the offending

tanker. In the given scenario, carrying or non-carrying of

dangerous or hazardous substance has no nexus with

cause of accident that occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of the vehicle by its driver. In this view of the

matter, it can safely be held that the breach complained

of by the insurer is not so fundamental as is found to

have contributed to the cause of accident.

This apart, perusal of Rule 9 of the Rules would

make it evident that before a driver can file an

application for obtaining necessary endorsement as

required under sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Rules, he is

to undergo some training for a period of two to three

days but the same does not deal with the professional

skill of driving. With regard to professional skill of

NARESH KUMAR

2019.02.06 15:29

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

FAO-8253-2017(O&M)

-3-

driving, it has already been clarified by the licensing

authority at the time of granting licence to the driver

authorizing him to drive a transport vehicle. When the

facts and circumstances of the present case are examined

in the light of judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in

Swaran Singh’s case (supra) coupled with the discussion

made hereinbefore, I am inclined to agree with what has

been held by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh

High Court in Baghelkhand Filling Station and another’s

case (supra) and Gujarat High Court in Amarshi

Punchanbai Patel and others’ case (supra). This Court in

Rajesh Singh’s case (supra) has neither adverted to

judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Swaran

Singh’s case (supra) nor judgments by the High Courts of

Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat. In this view of the matter,

insurance company can neither escape its l