1 2025:CGHC:49796 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2090 of 2019 1 - Gurucharan Singh S/o. Chuhal Singh Aged About 86 Years R/o. Surendra Niwas, Near Bunkar Sangh, Santra Badi, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G.- 04- J.D.- 3240), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Seshnarayan S/o. Bodhram Sahu Aged About 53 Years Residents Of Kapsada, P.S.- Dharsiwa, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.(Claimants), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sohadra Bai W/o. Seshnarayan Aged About 51 Years Residents Of Kapsada, P.S.- Dharsiwa, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.(Claimants), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager/ Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Division No. 1, United India Insurance Company Limited, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Vehicle No. C.G.-04- J.D.- 3240), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ashwani Kumar S/o. Ratan Tangi, Through Gurucharan Singh, R/o. Surendra Niwas, Near Bunkar Sangh, Santra Badi, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G.-04- J.D.-3240), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Shobit Mishra, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Aakash Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Prerna Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 31/07/2025 SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 1. Appellant/Owner of the offending vehicle has filed this appeal challenging the impugned award dated 29.08.2019 passed by the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 399/2017. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the Truck bearing registration No. CG 04 JD 3240 owned by the Non-Applicant No. 2 and driven by the Non-Applicant No. 1 met with an accident while carrying gas cylinders in it. The claimants/parents of the deceased have filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation against the death of late Sohan Kumar Sahu their son. The Appellant/Non-applicant No. 2 did not appear before the learned Claims Tribunal and he was proceeded ex parte. 3. Non-applicant No. 3/Respondent No. 3 herein submitted reply to claim application raising plea that on the date of accident, Non-applicant No. 1 was not possessed with valid and effective driving license as there is no endorsement in the driving license as provided under Rule 9 (3) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Rules, 1989) authorizing him to drive the hazardous goods vehicle. After completion of trial, Claims Tribunal has allowed the claim application and awarded Rs. 11,50,543/- as compensation. However, exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle/Non-Applicant No. 1 was not possessed with valid and effective driving license, in absence of the endorsement authorizing him to drive the hazardous goods vehicle by the licensing authority and fastened liability upon the Non-Applicant No. 2 to satisfy the amount of compensation, however, directed the Non- applicant No. 3/Insurance Company to first pay the amount of 3 compensation and thereafter, to recover the same from Appellant/Non- Applicant No. 2. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in exonerating the insurance company on the ground that the Non-Applicant No. 1 driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving license, as there is no endorsement by the licensing authority authorizing the Non-applicant No. 1 to drive the hazardous goods vehicle. He submits that the said finding is erroneous and overlooking the document Ex. D/4 submitted by witness Surender Kumar (NAW – 3). He submits that he produced the document Ex. D/4 (c) which is the refresher course certificate issued by SIUX Training Centre for ‘Safe Road Transportation of Dangerous & Hazardous Goods”. He submits that it is not a case that Non-applicant No. 1 driver of offending vehicle did not underwent the training, the only lapse on the part of the driver is that he could not get it endorsed by the licensing authority in the license. 5. He also contended that the he underwent training as required every year before completion of the period as mentioned in the certificate. As the Non-applicant No. 1 has underwent training and he is having the valid and effective driving license to drive the hazardous goods vehicle, therefore, it cannot be said that the Non-applicant NO. 1 was not authorized to drive the vehicle which he was driving at the time of accident. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Baghelkhand Filling Station and Anr. Vs. Brijbhan Prasad and Ors. reported in (2006) ACJ 2503 and the decision in case of Manish Garg & Anr. Vs. 4 United India Insurance Company Ltd. in MAC APP. No. 11/2023, CM APPL. No. 932/2023. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 opposes the submission made by the counsel for appellant and would submit that the requirement of endorsement in the license of underwent training to drive the dangerous and hazardous goods vehicle is mandatory under Rule 9 (3) of the Rules, 1989. She also contended that certificate of the training if any, was available with the driver of the offending vehicle, he could have produced before the police during course of investigation. The police during course of investigation has not seized the certificate as filed before the learned Claims Tribunal as Ex. D/4 (C) and therefore, the veracity of this document placed on record by the Non- Applicant No. 2 appears to be suspicious. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of claim case. 8. Perusal of the records of the claim case would show that the Non- applicant No. 1 dashed the motorcycle driven by the deceased Sohan Kumar Sahu while carrying cylinders on the offending truck. The Non- applicant No. 1 Driver and Non-applicant No. 2 owner did not submit written statement/reply to the claim application nor they entered into the witness box. The Non-applicant No. 3 in support of the reply have produced extract of the license of Non-applicant No. 1 issued on 31.10.2017 which mentions the details of the category for which, license was issued i.e. light motor vehicle and transport vehicle. The transport vehicle license was issued initially on 08.01.2005. Validity period of the transport license was mentioned as up to 22.06.2018. The accident is dated 20.03.2017 and therefore, from the description as 5 mentioned in the license, it is reflecting that the license for authorizing Non-applicant No. 1 to drive the transport vehicle was issued on 23.06.2015 and was valid uptil 22.06.2018 whereas, the accident was between the period when the license issued in favour of the Non- Applicant No. 1 to drive the heavy goods vehicle/transport vehicle was effective. It is also not in dispute that at the time of accident, he was driving the heavy goods vehicle (transport vehicle) carrying cylinders. The goods which was being transported in the heavy goods vehicle is dangerous and hazardous goods and therefore, according to Rule 9 of the Rules, 1989, the driver requires to undergo training. Rule 9 which is essential for disposal of this case is extracted below for ready reference:- “9. Educational qualifications for drivers of goods carriages carrying dangerous or hazardous goods: (1) One year from the date of commencement of Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1993, any person driving a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life shall, in addition to being the holder of a driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, also has the ability to read and write at least one Indian language out of those 5 [specified in the VIII Schedule of the Constitution] and English and also possess a certificate of having successfully passed a course consisting of following syllabus and periodicity connected with the transport of such goods: 6 Period of training 3 days Place of training At any institute recognized by the State Government Syllabus A. Defensive Driving Questionnaire Duration of training for A & B - 1st and 2nd day Cause of accidents Accidents, statistics Driver’s Personal fitness Car condition Braking distance Highway driving Road/Pedestrian crossing Railway crossing Adapting to weather Head on collision Rear end collision Night Driving Films and discussion B. Advanced driving skills and training (i) Discussion Before starting -Check List -outside/below/near vehicle -product side -inside vehicle During driving -correct speed/gear -signaling -lane control -overtaking/giving side -speed limit/safe distance -driving on slopes Before stopping -safe stopping place, signaling, road width, condition After stopping -preventing vehicle movement -wheel clocks 7 -vehicle attendance [Night driving -mandatory lighting requirements -headlamp alignment -use of dipped beam] (ii) Field test/training -1 driver at a time C. Product safety -UN classification duration of training for (C) Third day -Hazchem Code -Toxicity flammability other definitions Product Information -Tremcards -CIS/MSDS -Importance of temperature, Pressure, level -Explosive limits -Knowledge about equipment Emergency Procedure -Communication -Spillage handling -Use of PPE -Fire fighting -First Aid -Toxic release control -Protection of wells, rivers, lakes, etc. -Use of protective equipment -Knowledge about valves etc.] 9. Perusal of Rule 9 (1) would show that it mandates to undergo training course as mentioned therein. Perusal of the syllabus and period of training would show that it is with regard to taking care of the vehicle and skills of driving and training as also, the training with regard to the product safety. After obtaining the certificate of training, the driver holding the license to drive the category/class of the vehicle has to make an application before the licensing authority along with a certificate making prayer for making an endorsement in his license already issued by the licensing authority. According to the provisions 8 under Rule 3 & 4, the licensing authority after receipt of the application and upon perusal of the certificate of training have to make an endorsement in the license. There is no further action provided under the Rules, 1989 on the part of the licensing authority. Upon receipt of the application along with the certificate of training and from the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1989, it is clearly appearing that after under going training by the driver, receipt of certificate of training, the job of the licensing authority is only ministerial as he has to make endorsement without further initiating any proceedings like verification of the said certificate or testing the veracity of the said certificate issued by the agency/authority. 10.In the case at hand, it is not that the certificate of training has not been produced by any of the witness before the Claims Tribunal. Even if the Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 became ex parte and did not enter into the witness box, however, training certificate is placed on record by the witness examined on behalf of the Non-applicant No. 2 i.e. Surender Singh (NAW – 3) and who placed the training certificate as Ex. D/4. On the date of producing the certificate issued by the authority of “Safe Road Transportation of Dangerous and Hazardous Goods” under Rule 9 (1) of the Rules, 1989 and further, the one day refresher course under Section 14 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, neither the exhibiting of the document by the witness is objected by the respective parties before the Claims Tribunal nor they have questioned, about the authenticity of this document before Claims Tribunal by filing written or oral objection. 11.In the facts of the case, the submission of counsel for the Respondent No. 3 that this certificate which is not produced by the driver/owner of 9 the offending cannot be considered to be valid and effective certificate is not sustainable. Accordingly, it is repelled. 12.Further, perusal of the certificate Ex. D/4 (C) would show that initially, it was issued for the period of 01 year and further mentions that the driver named therein underwent training from 11.03.2016 to 13.03.2016 and the certificate was valid up to 12.03.2017. Further, certificate of one day refresher course mentions that the driver under the training attended the refresher course on 12.03.2017 and it was renewed up to 11.03.2018. From perusal of the aforementioned document, it appears that on the date of accident, the driver of the offending (Non-applicant No. 1) has underwent one day refresher course and he was permitted training to drive the dangerous and hazardous goods vehicle uptill 01.03.2018. 13.Perusal of the license which is placed on record as Ex. D/10 would show that there is endorsement in the license by the licensing authority authorizing the driver named therein to drive the dangerous and hazardous goods vehicle and therefore, the question arises for consideration of this Court is whether a person who underwent training, issued certificate in this regard by the authority who gave training to the driver, would not be authorized to drive the transport vehicle carrying hazardous goods only because there is no endorsement in the license or if, such a person is driving the vehicle without there being endorsement even after, under going training would be treated that he was driving the vehicle carrying hazardous goods without there being any valid and effective driving license. 14.The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation and the provisions under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 have to be given 10 purposive interpretation. The purpose under the Act, 1988 and Rules, 1989 framed therein, in the facts of the case is that the person who has to drive the vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods had to undergo training and based on the training certificate issued by the authority, it is further to be made endorsement by the licensing authority. The licensing authority has only to make endorsement witout any further enquiry on the certificate submitted before it which under the provisions of the Rules, 1989 appears to be the ministerial work. The High court of Delhi in its judgment in case of Manish Garg (Supra) has considered the identical issue and has observed thus:- “42. Even otherwise, Appellant No. 2/ driver was undisputably holding a valid driving license at the time of the accident and had undergone the requisite training for driving vehicles carrying hazardous goods, a fact duly evidenced by a training certificate which has not been disputed by Respondent No. 1/Insurance Company. The endorsement referred to in Rule 9(3) of the MV Rules, is merely a ministerial act to be performed by the licensing authority and not a prerequisite that nullifies the competency or training of the driver. A coordinate Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sonia Mittal: 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11202 while deciding somewhat similar issue, held as under : 11. Coming to the defence taken by the insurance company vis-à-vis the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, what distinguishes the case at hand is that the driver of the offending vehicle had undergone the requisite training which had been duly certified. There is nothing on record to show that the insurance company raises questions about the validity of the training certificate. It is insisting merely on the fact that 11 there was no endorsement secured from the transport authority in terms of the requirement under the rules. That, however, ought not cut any ice. What is the crucial requirement is the special training for driving a vehicle meant for transportation of hazardous goods. That requirement had been fulfilled. Securing of endorsement in wake of such certification of the special skill was more of ministerial nature. The rule of main purpose would apply [see National Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297]. The plea of insurers for recovery rights is, therefore, rejected." 45. Therefore, in the present case, Appellant No. 2/driver had undergone requisite training and was in possession of a valid driving license. Further, there is no evidence that the tanker was carrying hazardous goods at the relevant time, the mere absence of endorsement under Rule 9 (3) of the MV Rules cannot be construed as a breach of statutory conditions sufficient to grant recovery rights to the insurer. At best, the absence of endorsement may attract an administrative penalty under the applicable rules, but it does not render the license invalid or the insurance policy inoperative vis-a-vis third-party claims. “ 15.The decision relied upon by the counsel for the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company in case of Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Smt. Parwati Sharma & Ors. in MAC No. 1255/2012 is on different facts. It was not the case of driver and owner of the offending vehicle that the driver underwent training and have produced the training certificate issued in his favour was effective on the date of accident and therefore, it is distinguishable on facts. Witness NAW -3 on behalf of NA-2 in his evidence has categorically stated that the Applicant/Non- 12 Applicant No. 2 was engaged as driver only after his verification of driving license and certificate of training. 16.In the aforementioned facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal erred in exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability to indemnify the insured. The said finding of the learned Claims Tribunal is erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore, it is set-aside. 17. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Appellant/Non-Applicant No. 2 (owner) is allowed in part and the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal would be upon the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company. 18. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey