1 2026:CGHC:20913 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2284 of 2019 1 - Smt. Laxmi Yadav, W/o. Late Laxman Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, R/o. Village Chandandih, P.S. Amanaka, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Deepak Yadav, S/o. Late Laxman Yadav, Aged About 10 Years, Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Laxmi Yadav, W/o. Late Laxman Yadav, R/o. Village Chandandih, P.S. Amanaka, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kumari Priya Yadav, D/o. Late Laxman Yadav, Aged About 9 Years, Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Laxmi Yadav, W/o. Late Laxman Yadav, R/o. Village Chandandih, P.S. Amanaka, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Roshan Yadav, S/o. Late Laxman Yadav, Aged About 7 Years, Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Laxmi Yadav, W/o. Late Laxman Yadav, R/o. Village Chandandih, P.S. Amanaka, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ....Claimants --- Appellants versus ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.05.06 16:50:14 +0530 2 1 - Doulat Ram Dhidhi, S/o. Harilal Dhidhi, Aged About 27 Years, R/o. Village Lakhauli, P.S. Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Tanker No. CG-14, A-1871) 2 - Smt. Uma Kushwah, D/o. Ajay Singh Kushwah, R/o. Vishal Nagar Telibandha, Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Tanker No. CG-14, A-1871) 3 - National Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Beside Of Lal Ganga Shopping Mal, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Tanker No. CG-14, A-1871) --- Respondents For Appellants : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate & MAC No. 269 of 2020 National Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Division Office - Besides Of Lalganga Shopping Mall, G.E. Road, Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Tanker Bearing Registration No. C.G.-14-A-1871) ---Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Laxmi Yadav, W/o. Late Laxman Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, R/o. Village Chandandih, Police Station Amanaka, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 2 - Deepak Yadav, S/o. Late Laxman Yadav, Aged About 10 Years, Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Laxmi Yadav, W/o. Late Laxman Yadav, R/o. Village Chandandih, P.S. Amanaka, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kumari Priya Yadav, D/o. Late Laxman Yadav, Aged About 9 Years, Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Laxmi Yadav, W/o. Late Laxman Yadav, R/o. Village Chandandih, P.S. Amanaka, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Roshan Yadav, S/o. Late Laxman Yadav, Aged About 7 Years, Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Laxmi Yadav, W/o. Late Laxman Yadav, R/o. Village Chandandih, P.S. Amanaka, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ……..Claimants 5 - Daulat Ram Dhidhi, S/o. Harilal Dhidhi, Aged About 27 Years, R/o. Village Lakholi, Police Station Arang, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Tanker Bearing Registration No. C.G. -14- A-1871). 6 - Smt. Uma Kushwah, W/o. Ajay Singh Kushwah, R/o. Vishal Nagar, Telibandha, Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ( Owner Of Offending Vehicle Tanker Bearing Registration No. C.G.-14-A-1871) --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 4 : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate 4 (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 05.05.2026 1. Against the impugned award dated 24.09.2019 passed by the learned Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No.211/2015, the claimants have preferred MAC No. 2284 of 2019 seeking enhancement of the compensation amount, whereas the insurance company has preferred MAC No.269 of 2020 seeking exoneration from liability to pay the compensation. 2. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the appeals, they are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, would submit that since the vehicle involved was a Tanker, which was carrying dangerous & hazardous substance, therefore, endorsement in the licence to that extent was required and since the driver did not have the requisite endorsement, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Chatha Service Station v. Lalmati Devi & Others 1 . He 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 756 5 would further submit that even though the vehicle was not carrying dangerous & hazardous substance then also the endorsement will be necessary in light of the decision of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the matter of Rajesh Singh & Anr. v. Hardeep Singh & Another2. 4. Ms. Prachi Singh, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, would submit that the amount of compensation is not just and proper, therefore, it deserves to be enhanced. 5. Mr. Sanjeev Verma, learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle, would support the impugned award and submit that the appeals of the insurance company & claimants both deserve to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. Appeal of the Insurance Company i.e. MAC No.269/2020 7. Sub-Rule (3) and (4) of Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 requires that Licensing Authority, on receipt of application referred to sub-rule (2), shall make an endorsement in the driving licence of the applicant to the effect that he is authorised to drive a 2 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 3261 6 goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous substance. Admittedly, the vehicle was a Tanker and it was goods carrying vehicle registered for carrying dangerous/ hazardous substance and driver of the said vehicle did have licence to drive the heavy goods vehicle but did not have necessary endorsement to drive that vehicle as required by the Rules. However, the learned Claims Tribunal in light of the decision of this Court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. A. Verlaxmi3 did not found favour the plea of the insurance company and proceeded to impose liability upon the insurance company. However, in this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in Chatha Service Station (supra) may be noticed herein profitably, in which the decision of this Court in A. Verlaxmi (supra) was also noticed and it was not approved by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court and observed in para 19 as under : “19. This raises genuine suspicion on the veracity of the certificate produced at the appellate stage. We have looked at the certificate as pointed out by the learned Counsel, a copy of which is available in the record. The document certifies the driver to have successfully completed a three-day training course between 13.01.2012 to 16.01.2012 in line with Rule 9 of the Rules. It is also seen from the certificate that the institution is approved by the Punjab Government. However, we have to notice that there is no serial number of issuance in the said document nor is there a round seal of the institution which issued the certificate 3 2013 SCC OnLine Chh 272 7 affixed. The licence of the driver also did not have an endorsement as required under the Act. We find absolutely no reason to entertain the appeals and dismiss the same affirming the direction to the insurance company to pay the amounts to the claimants and recover it from the owner of the oil-tanker. 8. As such, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court found that the driver did not have necessary endorsement to drive the vehicle carrying dangerous & hazardous substance and proceeded to exonerate the insurance company and fastened liability upon the insurance company, but principle of pay and recover has been applied. However, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the matter of Rajesh Singh (supra) considering Rule 9(3) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 has clearly held that even the Tanker was empty then also the driver must have valid driving licence with an endorsement to drive the vehicle carrying dangerous & hazardous substance and observed as under : “13. A perusal of Rule 9(3) reveals that the licensing authority on receipt of application which is referred to in clause 2 has to make an endorsement on the driving licence and the words used there are “shall”. When the owner had engaged the driver it was his responsibility to see that the licence had the necessary endorsement. He has failed to discharge his duty/responsibility placed upon a transporter/owner of goods carriage. The Tribunal had rightly exonerated the insurance company since there was a breach of the provisions of the insurance policy. The driving licence could not be accepted as a valid licence. The argument that on that particular journey the oil tanker was empty, would be 8 meaningless. The oil tanker is used for transporting oil and the licence does not show any endorsement. It signifies that the driver did not have a valid and effective licence to drive a goods carriage which was meant for transporting hazardous and dangerous goods. There is no infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal on this aspect.” 9. In that view of the matter, the insurance company will be exonerated from the liability. However, the principle of pay and recover is applied, therefore, the insurance company shall first pay the amount of compensation and thereafter recover from the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, the appeal of the insurance company is partly allowed. Appeal of the Claimants i.e. MAC No.2284/2019 10. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of accident, whereas the learned Claims Tribunal has taken the age of deceased to be 32 years, therefore, the age of deceased should be taken as 30 years and multiplier of 17 will apply. However, as per the statement of the claimant No.1, Smt. Laxmi Yadav, she herself has stated the age of her husband to be 35 years, therefore, 32 years age has rightly been taken by the learned Claims Tribunal and in no other heads, the compensation deserves to be enhanced. As such, the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants is just & proper, therefore, no interference is called for. 9 11. In the result, appeal of the insurance company is partly allowed and the appeal of the claimants is dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok