Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41076 Court No. - 8 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 836 of 2012 Appellant :- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office Faizabad Respondent :- Sri Munijar And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- T.J.S. Makker Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Pandey Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard Sri Zafar Aziz, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appears for the respondents, despite the name of Sri Rajesh Pandey been shown as counsel for the respondents. 2. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant- New India Assurance Company Limited, challenging the award dated 22.02.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal")/Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Balrampur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.77 of 2008, wherein, in a death case, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,59,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition in favour of the claimants-respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 3. Since the appeal is of the year 2012, the Court has proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the appellant, in absence of the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The short submission which has been made by learned counsel for the appellant is that, since the vehicle in question was being driven by respondent No. 4, who did not have the requisite endorsement entitling him to drive a tanker carrying hazardous goods, in the absence of such an endorsement, the licence as alleged was ineffective; rather, it becomes a case of 'no licence'. In such circumstances, the award should have been passed against the owner and no liability could have been fastened upon the appellant. 5. The record indicates that in a road accident which occurred on 17.04.1992, one Raju was hit by Tanker No. WVL7974 (hereinafter referred to as "Tanker"), which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 4. 6. The legal heirs/dependents of the deceased, Raju, preferred the Claim Petition bearing No. 77 of 2008. The record further indicates that defendants No. 1 and 2 in the claim petition, who were the owner and driver respectively, despite service of notice, did not appear to contest the proceedings. It was only the Insurance Company that filed its written statement and took the general defence that unless and until it is proved that the offending vehicle in question was duly insured and its driver possessed a valid and subsisting driving licence, no liability under the award could be fastened upon the appellant. 7. The record further indicates that the Tribunal, while considering the issues, noted that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tanker. It also recorded a finding that the vehicle in question was duly insured with the Insurance Company. However, it further observed that the driver, who had furnished his licence, did not have the requisite endorsement entitling him to drive a Tanker carrying hazardous goods. Thereafter, the Tribunal proceeded to assess the compensation and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,59,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. It further directed the Insurance Company to pay the said amount to the claimants and, thereafter, to recover the same from the owner. It is this award which is under challenge. 8. In light of the limited submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, it will be worthwhile to note that this issue regarding the endorsement on the licence authorising the driver to drive vehicle carrying hazardous goods has been considered by this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Sheela and Others, 2023 (3) T.A.C. 222 (All.), wherein, taking aid of earlier decisions, it was categorically held that a driver operating a vehicle carrying hazardous goods must possess an endorsement authorizing him to drive such a vehicle. Failing which, it would constitute a violation of the policy condition, and in such a case, if the award is made payable by the Insurance Company, it would be granted the right of recovery. This issue has recently been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s Chatha Service Station vs. Lalmati Devi and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 756 wherein the Apex Court has also held that insofar as the vehicle carrying hazardous goods is concerned, the driver must have the requisite endorsement on his license and in case if such endorsement is not present that would amount to violation of the policy conditions. 9. In light of the settled legal position and having considered the material on record, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant does not find favour with this Court for the simple reason that the Tribunal has already noticed that the licence did not contain the endorsement to drive hazardous goods and, at the same time, while directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the award, it has already been granted the right of recovery. This aspect has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that there is no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The award dated 22.02.2012 passed by the Tribunal in Claim Petition No.77 of 2008 is affirmed. 11. Any amount deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal to be released in favour of the claimants- respondents and any shortfall with updated interest shall also be paid by the Insurance Company to the claimants as per the award within sixty days from today, failing which, the claimants shall be entitled to recover the same through the process of the Tribunal. 12. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. The record of the Tribunal shall be returned forthwith. (Jaspreet Singh, J.) Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Shubhankar Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench