JUDGMENT : Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 28.11.2017 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Central Filing No.73/2016 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon driver and owner of Truck bearing registration No.CG-07-C-1025 (for short, “offending vehicle”). 2. Brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that, on 11.06.2015 at about 5:00 a.m., deceased late Mohammad Qasim, husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimants No.2 and 3, had gone out for his morning walk. Upon reaching Ring Road near Harsagar Lake, within the territorial limits of Kotwali Police Station, Ambikapur, the vehicle in question, loaded with gas cylinders and was being driven by non-applicant No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased, resulting in the fatal accident. As a result of the impact, Mohammad Qasim sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The incident was reported to the police by Mohammad Asfaq, cousin of the deceased, who was also present at the time of occurrence and had witnessed the accident while on his morning walk. On the basis of the said report, a criminal case was registered and investigation was carried out. 3. The claimants, being the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act’) before the learned Claims Tribunal, seeking compensation on account of the untimely death of Mohammad Qasim. It was specifically pleaded that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The claimants assessed the compensation payable to them at Rs.28,90,000/- along with interest, and prayed that the said amount be recovered jointly and severally from the non-claimants (driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle). 4. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.5,10,600/- in favour of the claimants, fastening liability upon the non-claimants No.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle, jointly and severally. 5. 4. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.5,10,600/- in favour of the claimants, fastening liability upon the non-claimants No.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle, jointly and severally. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/driver and owner of the offending vehicle submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed a grave error in fastening the liability upon the owner and driver while exonerating the insurance company. It is contended that the gas cylinders in question were being transported pursuant to Government tenders from a designated depot to authorized dealers and the entire system, including training of drivers, was arranged by the Government through the Regional Transport Office and the concerned Oil Corporation. The driver was duly authorized and had undergone specific training for safe road transportation of dangerous and hazardous goods, which fact was already brought on record along with reply, affidavit and supporting documents. It is further submitted that on the date of the incident, only empty gas cylinders were loaded in the vehicle and no hazardous or inflammable goods were being transported; therefore, there was no requirement for the driver to possess a special endorsement to drive a vehicle carrying dangerous or hazardous goods. Consequently, the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant was not holding a valid licence to drive a hazardous vehicle is misconceived and contrary to law. 6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Claims Tribunal has misdirected itself in exonerating the insurance company solely on the ground of alleged absence of a hazardous goods endorsement, without properly appreciating the factual and legal position. Learned counsel contends that in the absence of carriage of hazardous goods and in view of the driver having undergone requisite training, the insurer could not have been absolved of its statutory liability under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is also urged that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the material brought on record indicating that the deceased had allegedly attempted to commit suicide on three previous occasions and that the present incident was the fourth such attempt. It is also urged that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the material brought on record indicating that the deceased had allegedly attempted to commit suicide on three previous occasions and that the present incident was the fourth such attempt. According to the learned counsel, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse, contrary to the evidence on record and suffer from serious legal infirmity, and therefore the impugned award deserves to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is wholly inadequate and does not represent just and fair compensation as contemplated under Section 168 of the M.V. Act. It is contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in properly assessing the income of the deceased, failed to grant appropriate addition towards future prospects and has awarded lesser amounts under the conventional heads. The deceased was the sole bread-earner of the family and his untimely demise has caused irreparable financial and emotional loss to the claimants. Therefore, it is prayed that the compensation amount be suitably enhanced in accordance with settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that even assuming without admitting that there was any technical breach regarding the driving licence or carriage of goods, the insurance company could not have been completely exonerated. In such circumstances, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the principle of “pay and recover” and directed the insurer to first satisfy the award in favour of the claimants and thereafter recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. The claimants, being third parties, cannot be made to suffer on account of any alleged inter se breach between the insured and the insurer. Hence, it is prayed that appropriate direction be issued to the insurance company to pay the awarded amount to the claimants and recover the same, if so entitled, from the other non-claimants in accordance with law. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company/respondent No.4 submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and has correctly exonerated the insurer from liability. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company/respondent No.4 submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and has correctly exonerated the insurer from liability. It is contended that on the date of the incident, the offending vehicle was a transport vehicle used for carrying gas cylinders and the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence with the requisite endorsement to drive a vehicle carrying dangerous or hazardous goods. The absence of such mandatory endorsement amounts to a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as violation of statutory provisions under the M.V. Act and Rules framed thereunder. In view of the clear breach, the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with liability. It is further submitted that the burden to prove that the driver possessed a valid and effective licence squarely lies upon the owner and driver, which they have failed to discharge. The alleged training or authorization, even if assumed to be correct, cannot substitute the statutory requirement of a valid endorsement on the driving licence. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly absolved the Insurance Company from liability and has fastened the same upon the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. It is thus prayed that the appeal seeking to impose liability upon the insurer or for application of the “pay and recover” principle be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 10. The learned Claims Tribunal, while dealing with the issue regarding breach of policy conditions, has held in paragraphs 17 to 27 of the impugned award that the non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company had specifically pleaded that at the time of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle, non-applicant No.1, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive a vehicle carrying dangerous and inflammable goods. It was the case of the Insurance Company that on the date of the incident the vehicle was transporting filled Indane gas cylinders, which are hazardous and highly inflammable substances, and that there was no endorsement on the driving licence authorizing the driver to transport such goods, thereby amounting to a gross violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 11. 11. In order to substantiate the said plea, the Insurance Company examined Rajesh Kumar Bhargava, Assistant Grade-3, Regional Transport Officer Office, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, who deposed on the basis of official records that Driving Licence No. CG- 04/2003/0018046 stood in the name of Sumit Kumar (non- applicant No.1) and was initially issued for motorcycle and light motor vehicle. An endorsement for heavy goods vehicle was made valid up to 02.10.2010 and thereafter renewed for transport vehicle from 18.03.2013 to 17.03.2019; however, there was no endorsement at any point of time authorizing transportation of hazardous and inflammable substances, nor was any fee deposited for such endorsement. The documents marked as Exhibits D-3 to D-8, including computer extracts and information furnished under the Right to Information Act, corroborated the said position. The Claims Tribunal further noted that even in cross- examination, non-applicant No.1 admitted that his driving licence (Exhibit D-1) did not contain any endorsement for driving a hazardous or inflammable goods vehicle. Although a training certificate from SOYX Training Institute, Jabalpur (Exhibit D-2) was produced, the Tribunal held that mere training does not substitute the statutory requirement of a valid endorsement on the driving licence. 12. The learned Claims Tribunal also relied upon the testimony of the Law Officer of non-applicant No.3, who proved the insurance policy (Exhibit D-9) and stated that the vehicle was insured for the relevant period. It was further established through evidence that at the time of the incident, filled gas cylinders were being transported and the tank was full. In view of these findings, the Claims Tribunal concluded that non-applicant No.1 was transporting dangerous and inflammable substances without a valid endorsement on his driving licence, which constituted a clear breach of policy conditions. Consequently, Issue No.3 was decided in favour of the Insurance Company, and non-applicant No.3 was discharged from liability to pay compensation. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chatha Service Station v. Lalmati Devi and others , 2025 SCC Online SC 756 has held as under :- “15. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , distinguished an ‘effective licence’ as used in Section 3 of the Act and the words ‘duly licenced’ used in Section 149 of the Act; as it existed before the amendment of 2019. The said decision considered the various contingencies in which the insurer could absolve themselves from their liability to indemnify. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , distinguished an ‘effective licence’ as used in Section 3 of the Act and the words ‘duly licenced’ used in Section 149 of the Act; as it existed before the amendment of 2019. The said decision considered the various contingencies in which the insurer could absolve themselves from their liability to indemnify. These contingencies were in relation to the driver of the offending vehicle, (i) having a licence of one type, at the time of accident driving another type of vehicle (ii) procuring a fake licence; (iii) possessing a learner's licence and (iv) admittedly having not obtained a license. We are concerned in the present case, with a situation where the driver of the offending goods vehicle having licence to drive a transport vehicle, under which class a goods vehicle falls; which however does not enable him to drive a goods vehicle carrying dangerous & hazardous goods. To enable this a transport vehicle licence holder; which vehicle includes the description of a goods carriage vehicle, will have to submit an application and obtain an endorsement under Section 11 read with Rule 9 of the Act and Rules. As has been held in Swaran Singh, it is incumbent on the Court/Tribunal considering a case of a licensee driving another type of vehicle, for which he has not obtained a licence, to take a decision as to whether this fact was the main or contributory cause of negligence. This factum of absence of licence to drive another type of vehicle is inconsequential if that is not the main or contributory cause of accident. It was so held in Swaran Singh: “… In each case, on evidence led before the Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that the accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with the driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence.” [sic. Para 89] *** 17. Para 89] *** 17. Admittedly, the driver did not have a licence as required under the Act and the Rules to drive a vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods. There is also no dispute that the offending vehicle; the oil tanker, was a vehicle intended to carry goods of dangerous and hazardous nature. The contention taken by the owner of the offending vehicle that there was no goods carried at the time of the accident, was negated by both the Tribunal and the High Court finding from the testimony of the driver that it was carrying oil at the relevant time.” 14. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chatha Service Station (supra), it is quite vivid that the driver of the offending vehicle, though holding a licence to drive a transport vehicle, admittedly did not possess the requisite statutory endorsement to transport hazardous and inflammable goods, and the evidence on record clearly establishes that filled gas cylinders were being carried at the time of the accident. The absence of such mandatory endorsement, in the backdrop of carriage of hazardous goods, constitutes a fundamental breach of the policy conditions and statutory provisions. In such circumstances, the exoneration of the Insurance Company by the learned Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be either erroneous or contrary to the settled legal position. 15. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court has carefully re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record as well as the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal in the impugned award. The core issue raised in the present appeal by the appellants/driver and owner of the offending vehicle pertains to exoneration of the Insurance Company on account of alleged breach of policy conditions. 16. From the evidence adduced by non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company, particularly the testimony of Rajesh Kumar Bhargava, Assistant Grade-3, Regional Transport Office, Raipur, supported by Exhibits D-3 to D-8, it stands clearly established that although the driver/non-applicant No.1 was holding a licence to drive a transport vehicle, he did not possess a valid and effective endorsement authorizing him to transport hazardous and inflammable substances. The material on record further demonstrates that at the time of the incident the offending vehicle was carrying filled gas cylinders, which are admittedly hazardous and inflammable goods. The material on record further demonstrates that at the time of the incident the offending vehicle was carrying filled gas cylinders, which are admittedly hazardous and inflammable goods. The driver himself admitted in cross- examination that he was transporting filled cylinders for delivery. Thus, there was a clear and admitted absence of statutory endorsement on the driving licence for carrying such goods. 17. The submission of the appellants that the driver had undergone training from a private institute does not cure the defect. A training certificate cannot substitute the mandatory endorsement required under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The violation in the present case is not a mere technical lapse but a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, which required the vehicle to be driven by a duly licensed and authorized person. The learned Claims Tribunal has elaborately considered the evidence and has rightly concluded that the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with liability in view of such breach. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence and correct application of law. No perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is made out warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. 19. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the appellants/driver and owner of the offending vehicle, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed . The impugned award is affirmed. No order as to costs. 20. The Registry is directed to send back the original record of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal forthwith along with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance.