Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Sabo on 18 January, 2021
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
(1 of 13) [CMA-893/2020]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 893/2020
United India Insurance Company Limited, Panchshati Circle ,
Sardulganj , Bikaner Through Manager , United India Insurance
Company Limited , 2Nd Floor , 74-A, Bhati N - Plaza , Main Pal
Road, Jodhpur
----Appellant
Versus
1. Sabo W/o Bhanwar Khan, Minor , Through Paternal
Grandmother (Dadi) Sabo, B/c Musalman , B/c
Musalman , R/o House No 14 , Ward No 26, Phad Bazar ,
Rama Modi Chakki , Bikaner (Raj.) (Claimants)
2. Javed Khan S/o Late Kalu Khan, Minor , Through Paternal
Grandmother (Dadi) Sabo, B/c Musalman , B/c
Musalman , R/o House No 14 , Ward No 26, Phad Bazar ,
Rama Modi Chakki , Bikaner (Raj.)
3. Naved Khan S/o Late Kalu Khan, Minor , Through Paternal
Grandmother (Dadi) Sabo, B/c Musalman , B/c
Musalman , R/o House No 14 , Ward No 26, Phad Bazar ,
Rama Modi Chakki , Bikaner (Raj.)
4. Ramlal S/o Jabararam, B/c Bheel , R/o Vill. Badali , P.s.
Soorsagar , Tehsil And Distt. Jodhpur At Present R/o 2Nd
Floor , Amrit Kailash , Bombay Motors , Chopasni Road,
Jodhpur (Raj.) (Regd. Owner)
5. Nawab Khan S/o Chand Khan, B/c Musalman , R/o Gulista
Colony , Bhadoo Market , Jodhpur (Raj.) (Owner Through
P.o.a.)
6. Shafi Khan S/o Sh. Jethu Khan, B/c Musalman , R/o Khet
Singh Nagar , Sabrasar ,p.s. Shergarh , Distt. Jodhpur
(Raj.) (Driver)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 892/2020
United India Insurance Company Limited, Panchshati Circle ,
Sardulganj , Bikaner Through Manager , United India Insurance
Company Limited , 2Nd Floor , 74-A, Bhati N - Plaza , Main Pal
Road, Jodhpur
----Appellant
(Downloaded on 21/01/2021 at 08:29:24 PM)
(2 of 13) [CMA-893/2020]
Versus
1. Saheeda W/o Sh. Mohd . Haroon, B/c Musalman , R/o In
Front Of Hussaini Masjid , Kasaiyon Ki Masjid , Near
Railway Line , Bikaner (Raj.)
2. Praveen D/o Late Kalu Khan, Minor , Through Maternal
Grandmother (Nani) Saheeda , B/c Musalman , R/o In
Front Of Hussaini Masjid , Kasaiyon Ki Masjid , Near
Railway Line , Bikaner (Raj.)
3. Dastgeer Khan S/o Late Kalu Khan, Minor , Through
Maternal Grandmother (Nani) Saheeda , B/c Musalman ,
R/o In Front Of Hussaini Masjid , Kasaiyon Ki Masjid ,
Near Railway Line , Bikaner (Raj.)
4. Ramlal S/o Jabararam, B/c Bheel , R/o Vill. Badali , P.s.
Soorsagar , Tehsil And Distt. Jodhpur At Present R/o 2Nd
Floor , Amrit Kailash , Bombay Motors , Chopasni Road,
Jodhpur (Raj.) (Regd. Owner)
5. Nawab Khan S/o Chand Khan, B/c Musalman , R/o Gulista
Colony , Bhadoo Market , Jodhpur (Raj.) (Owner Through
P.o.a.)
6. Shafi Khan S/o Sh. Jethu Khan, B/c Musalman , R/o Khet
Singh Nagar , Sabrasar ,p.s. Shergarh , Distt. Jodhpur
(Raj.) (Driver)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 895/2020
United India Insurance Company Limited, Panchshati Circle ,
Sardulganj , Bikaner Through Manager , United India Insurance
Company Limited , 2Nd Floor , 74-A, Bhati N - Plaza , Main Pal
Road, Jodhpur
----Appellant
Versus
1. Jahurdeen S/o Sh. Basu Khan, B/c Musalman , R/o Ward
No 3, Vill. Jalwali , Tehsil And Distt. Bikaner (Raj.)
(Claimant)
2. Ramlal S/o Jabararam, B/c Nayak (Bheel) , R/o Vill.
Badali , P.s. Soorsagar , Tehsil And Distt. Jodhpur At
Present R/o 2Nd Floor , Amrit Kailash , Bombay Motors ,
Chopasni Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Regd. Owner)
3. Shafi Khan S/o Sh. Jethu Khan, B/c Musalman , R/o Khet
Singh Nagar , Sabrasar ,p.s. Shergarh , Distt. Jodhpur
(Downloaded on 21/01/2021 at 08:29:24 PM)
(3 of 13) [CMA-893/2020]
(Raj.) (Driver)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 898/2020
United India Insurance Company Limited, Panchshati Circle ,
Sardulganj , Bikaner Through Manager , United India Insurance
Company Limited , 2Nd Floor , 74-A , Bhati N- Plaza , Main Pal
Road, Jodhpur
----Appellant
Versus
1. Gulam Khan S/o Sh. Deenu Khan, B/c Musalman , R/o
Jalwali , Tehsil And Distt. Bikaner (Raj.) (Claimants)
2. Najeera D/o Gulam Khan, Minor , Through Father Gulam
Khan , B/c Musalman , R/o Jalwali , Tehsil And Distt.
Bikaner (Raj.) (Claimants)
3. Saddam Hussain S/o Gulam Khan, Minor , Through Father
Gulam Khan , B/c Musalman , R/o Jalwali , Tehsil And
Distt. Bikaner (Raj.) (Claimants)
4. Kashmeera D/o Gulam Khan, Minor , Through Father
Gulam Khan , B/c Musalman , R/o Jalwali , Tehsil And
Distt. Bikaner (Raj.) (Claimants)
5. Ameer Khan S/o Gulam Khan, Minor , Through Father
Gulam Khan , B/c Musalman , R/o Jalwali , Tehsil And
Distt. Bikaner (Raj.) (Claimants)
6. Ramlal S/o Jabararam, B/c Nayak (Bheel) , R/o Village
Badali , P.s. Soorsagar , Tehsil And Distt. Jodhpur At
Present R/o 2Nd Floor , Amrit Kailash , Bombay Motors ,
Chopasni Road ,jodhpur (Raj.) (Regd. Owner)
7. Shafi Khan S/o Sh. Jethu Khan, B/c Musalman , R/o Khet
Singh Nagar , Sabrasar , P.s. Shergarh , Distt. Jodhpur
(Raj.) (Driver)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 913/2020
United India Insurance Company Limited, Panchshati Circle,
Sardulganj, Bikaner Through Manager, United India Insurance
Company Limited, 2Nd Floor, 74-A, Bhati N Plaza, Main Pal Road,
Jodhpur (Insurer)
----Appellant
Versus
(Downloaded on 21/01/2021 at 08:29:24 PM)
(4 of 13) [CMA-893/2020]
1. Hajara W/o Late Mohammad Deen, B/c Musalman, R/o
Ward No. 3, Vill. Jalwali, Tehsil And Dist. Bikaner (Raj.)
2. Bakeela D/o Late Mohammad Deen, Minor Through
Mother Smt. Hajara, B/c Musalman, R/o Ward No. 3, Vill.
Jalwali, Tehsil And Dist. Bikaner (Raj.)
3. Munshab Ali S/o Late Mohammad Deen, Minor Through
Mother Smt. Hajara, B/c Musalman, R/o Ward No. 3, Vill.
Jalwali, Tehsil And Dist. Bikaner (Raj.)
4. Mumtaz D/o Late Mohammad Deen, Minor Through
Mother Smt. Hajara, B/c Musalman, R/o Ward No. 3, Vill.
Jalwali, Tehsil And Dist. Bikaner (Raj.)
5. Hafiza D/o Late Mohammad Deen, Minor Through Mother
Smt. Hajara, B/c Musalman, R/o Ward No. 3, Vill. Jalwali,
Tehsil And Dist. Bikaner (Raj.)
6. Aspak S/o Late Mohammad Deen, Minor Through Mother
Smt. Hajara, B/c Musalman, R/o Ward No. 3, Vill. Jalwali,
Tehsil And Dist. Bikaner (Raj.)
7. Janta W/o Shyan Khan, B/c Musalman, R/o Ward No. 3,
Vill. Jalwali, Tehsil And Dist. Bikaner (Raj.)
8. Shyan Khan S/o Ramjan Khan, B/c Musalman, R/o Ward
No. 3, Vill. Jalwali, Tehsil And Dist. Bikaner (Raj.)
9. Ramlal S/o Jabararam, B/c Nayak (Bheel), R/o Vill- -
Badali, P.s. Soorsagar, Tehsil And Dist.. Jodhpur At
Present R/o 2Nd Floor, Amrit Kailash, Bombay Motors,
Chopasani Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Regd. Owner)
10. Shafi Khan S/o Shri Jethu Khan, B/c Musalman, R/o Khet
Singh Nagar, Sabrasar, P.s. Shergarh, Distt. Jodhpur
(Raj.) (Driver)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 915/2020
United India Insurance Company Limited, Panchshati Circle,
Sardulganj, Bikaner Through Manager, United India Insurance
Company Limited, 2Nd Floor, 74-A, Bhati N Plaza, Main Pal Road,
Jodhpur (Insurer)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Sabi @ Sabo W/o Late Yaru Khan, B/c Musalman, R/o Vill.
- Jalwali, Tehsil And District Bikaner (Raj.)
2. Ram Lal S/o Jabararam, B/c Nayak (Bheel), R/o Vill- -
(Downloaded on 21/01/2021 at 08:29:24 PM)
(5 of 13) [CMA-893/2020]
Badali, P.s. Soorsagar, Tehsil And Dist.. Jodhpur At
Present R/o 2Nd Floor, Amrit Kailash, Bombay Motors,
Chopasani Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Regd. Owner)
3. Shafi Khan S/o Shri Jethu Khan, B/c Musalman, R/o Khet
Singh Nagar, Sabrasar, P.s. Shergarh, Distt. Jodhpur
(Raj.) (Driver)
4. Salam Khan S/o Shri Yaru Khan, B/c Musalman, R/o Vill -
Jalwali, Tehsil And Distt. Bikaner (Raj.)
5. Gulam Fatma W/o Shri Mangtu Khan, B/c Musalman, R/o
Vill - Jalwali, Tehsil And Distt. Bikaner (Raj.)
6. Ramjan Khan S/o Shri Yaru Khan, B/c Musalman, R/o Vill
- Jalwali, Tehsil And Distt. Bikaner (Raj.)
7. Gulam Khan S/o Shri Yaru Khan, B/c Musalman, R/o Vill -
Jalwali, Tehsil And Distt. Bikaner (Raj.)
8. Nawab Khan S/o Shri Yaru Khan, B/c Musalman, R/o Vill -
Jalwali, Tehsil And Distt. Bikaner (Raj.)
9. Lakhe Khan S/o Shri Yaru Khan, B/c Musalman, R/o Vill -
Jalwali, Tehsil And Distt. Bikaner (Raj.)
10. Raje Khan S/o Shri Yaru Khan, B/c Musalman, R/o Vill -
Jalwali, Tehsil And Distt. Bikaner (Raj.)
11. Taje Khan S/o Shri Yaru Khan, B/c Musalman, R/o Vill -
Jalwali, Tehsil And Distt. Bikaner (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Johri assisted by Mr.
Lalit Parihar & Mr. Shibhankar Johri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.R. Chawla
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment Reportable 18/01/2021 Applications for dispensing with the certified copies are allowed.
With the consent of the parties, all the above appeals are being decided finally by this common order as they arise out of the same accident in question.
(Downloaded on 21/01/2021 at 08:29:24 PM)
(6 of 13) [CMA-893/2020] The present appeals have been filed against the judgment and award dated 08.01.2020 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Labour Court Industrial Disputes Tribunal), Bikaner in Motor Accident Claim Case Nos. 249/2012, 345/2012, 62/2013, 59/2013, 60/2013 & 61/2013.
Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are that a Diesel Tanker bearing registration No. RJ-19-1-G-5651 which was being driven by its driver Shafi Khan met with an accident with a pick-up vehicle bearing registration No. HP-33-B-0321 on 08.04.2012. The occupant of the pick-up vehicle, namely, Kalu Khan, Mohammad Deen, Yaaru Khan and Hanif Khan died on the spot and one Guddi and Jahiruddin were injured grievously. The injured were taken to the Hospital and during the course of treatment, Guddi also passed away.
In these circumstances, the claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal and following issues were framed :-
"¼1½ vk;k iz"uxr okgu la[;k Vªd ua- R.J.19-1G-5651 ds pkyd foi{kh lQh [kka ds }kjk fnukad 08-04-12 dks lM+d vke Hkksfe;k th ds eafnj ds ikl "kksHkklj ls igys ij mDr okgu dks mis{kk@mrkoysiu ls pyk dj dh xbZ nq?kZVuk es vkbZ pksVksa ds ifj.kkeLo:i dkyw[kka] eksgEen nhu] ;k: [kka ,oa xqM~Mh dh e`R;q gqbZ ;k tqgwjnhu ds pksVs vkbZ \ ¼2½ vk;k foi{kh la[;k ;wukbZVsM bf.M;k ba";ksjsal da- fy- chek daiuh }kjk vius mYysf[kr dFku esa izkjfEHkd vkifRr;ksa ,oa fo"ks'k dFku ds e/; vius nkf;Ro ls eqDr gks ldrk gS] ugha rks bldk izHkko ¼3½ vk;k nkosnkj vius nkoksa@nkos esa vafdr iz"uxr jkf"k ;k vU; dksbZ U;k;lEer jkf"k ik ldrk gS] gkW rks dkSu dkSu nkosnkj fdruh&fdruh jkf"k] fdl&fdl foi{kh ls ,oe~ fdl izdkj ik ldrk gS \"
After framing the above issues, the Tribunal decided the claim petitions vide its judgment and award dated 08.01.2020 (wrongly mentioned as 08.01.2010) after analyzing the evidence adduced from both the sides.
(Downloaded on 21/01/2021 at 08:29:24 PM)
(7 of 13) [CMA-893/2020] Heard learned counsel for the appellants, as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before this Court that findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal on Issue No.2 are perverse as the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts in the correct perspective. He contends that the Tribunal has failed to take into account that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding the "perfect driving license" and therefore, there was a breach of policy conditions and hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the damages. He has pointed out that the conditions of the policy specifically provide that the vehicle insured with the appellant should be driven by a driver who is holding the "perfect driving license". Having not considered this aspect of the matter the Tribunal has erred while passing the judgment and award dated 08.01.2020.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that it is of no consequence whether the vehicle which was insured with the appellant was carrying the "hazardous goods" or not at the time of accident. What is important is as to whether subject vehicle was meant for carrying the "hazardous goods". He emphasized that the vehicle insured was used for carrying the hazardous goods (although there was no Diesel(hazardous goods) at the time of accident) and therefore, all intents and purposes whether it is carrying hazardous goods or not. It will have the same implication even if the hazardous goods are not filled at the time of accident.
Mr. Sanjeev Johari, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the driver of the Tanker, namely, Shafi Khan was though (Downloaded on 21/01/2021 at 08:29:24 PM) (8 of 13) [CMA-893/2020] having license to drive the heavy motor vehicles but the endorsement of the RTO on 09.04.2012 i.e. the day after the date of accident. This clearly shows that the driver of the Tanker was not holding the requisite qualifications of the "perfect driving license" for driving the subject vehicle and therefore, he was not competent to drive the Tanker insured with the Insurance Company and thus, there was breach of the policy conditions in the present case, which has been over-looked by the Tribunal.
Learned counsel further contended that as per Table-III, appended to Rule 137 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, Entry No.1656-Petroleum Crude Oil and Diesel should be covered under this heading. Learned counsel on the strength of certain documents try to persuade this Court that Diesel is also a flammable petroleum product and the same should also be considered under Entry No.1656 and thus, Diesel should also be considered as hazardous good. He further contended that since Diesel is required to be considered as hazardous good, therefore, certain special conditions should be applied as per the policy for driving the vehicles by the drivers and therefore, in the wake of these submissions the driver of the Tanker was not having the "perfect driving license".
Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Sony Cheriyan reported in 1999 6 SCC 451, and tried to draw analogy on the basis of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 whereby, if there is violation of the permit conditions then it is considered as a breach of policy. On the same analogy, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the "perfect driving license" (Downloaded on 21/01/2021 at 08:29:24 PM)
(9 of 13) [CMA-893/2020] was not held by the driver of the Tanker, the same should be considered as a breach or violation of the policy conditions. The Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter and therefore, has clearly erred in fastening the liability of compensation upon the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that driver had emptied the vehicle prior to the date of accident at some location as ordered by his master.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that findings of the Tribunal on Issue No.2 are perfectly in order as the same has been passed after evaluating and appreciating the evidence on record. He further submits that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that vehicle (Tanker) was driven by Shafi Khan who was holding the valid driving license at the time of accident. He further submits that at the time of accident, the vehicle was empty and there was no hazardous good i.e. Diesel. He submits that there is no provision or rule which specifically states that the driver of heavy vehicle should also hold a special category of license to drive the heavy motor vehicles with hazardous goods. The Tribunal has rightly hold that the day on which the heavy motor vehicle i.e. Tanker was driven by Shafi Khan, who was holding a valid driving license to drive that vehicle. Learned counsel has also submitted that even if the endorsement was done on 09.04.2012 for driving the vehicle with hazardous goods will not make Shafi Khan ineligible to drive the heavy motor vehicle on 08.04.2012. In any case, the appellant cannot disown the liability of compensation in the present case as the subject vehicle i.e. Tanker was being driven by a person who was (Downloaded on 21/01/2021 at 08:29:24 PM) (10 of 13) [CMA-893/2020] authorized to drive the same and the same was insured with the appellant. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Tribunal do not call for any interference by this Court.
I have considered the submissions made at the bar and I have gone through the records as well as the judgment passed by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal while dealing with the Issue No. 2 has in detail, dealt with the issue with respect to the holding of the license by Shafi Khan, and the carrying of the hazardous goods at the time of accident. The findings which have been recorded are absolutely in conformity with the evidence adduced and provisions of law. The relevant portion of the same are reproduced as under :-
"32- bl izdkj i=koyh ij vk;h lk{; ls ojoDr nq?kZVuk fnukad 08-04-2012 dks okgu pkyd vizkFkhZ la- 3 ds ikl ,p-Vh-oh- oxZ dk ykblsal gksuk tkfgj gqvk gSA ;gka ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd chek daiuh dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{kh ,u-,- MCyw 2 fxj/kkjh yky Mhty dks Hazardous goods gksuk crk;k gS ijUrq dsUnzh; ;ku fu;e 1989 dh r`rh; vuqlwfp esa tks Hazardous goods dh lwph of.kZr gS mlesa dkSuls lhjh;y uEcj ij o fdl LFkku ij Mhty dks Hazardous goods ?kksf'kr fd;k x;k gS] ,slh chek daiuh dh dksbZ lk{; ugha gS vkSj uk gh bl lanHkZ esa chek daiuh dk Li'Vr;k dFku jgk gS fd Mhty dsUnz ljdkj }kjk dkSuls fof"k'V fu;e ;k izko/kku ds vUrxZr Hazardous goods ?kksf'kr fd;k x;k gSA ;gka ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd gLrxr ekeysa esa nq? kZVuk okgu ds pkyu ls dkfjr gqbZ gS uk fd fdlh Toyu"khy inkFkZ ls o ojoDr nq?kZVuk okgu pkyd ds ikl okgu dks pyk;s tkus dk ,p Vh oh oxZ dk oS/k o izHkkoh Mªkbfoax ykblsal FkkA blds lkFk gh chek daiuh dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{; ,u-,-MCyw- 2 fxj/kkjhyky us bl ckr dks Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd chek ikWfylh esa Hazardous goods ds lanHkZ esa dksbZ 'krZ dk vadu ugha FkkA iz"uxr nq?kZVuk ds le; okgu esa Mhty Hkjk gqvk gks] ,slk dksbZ izHkkoh lk{; chek daiuh dh vksj ls izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gSA izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`'VkUr 2015 ACJ Page 132 United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs A. Verlaxmi and other. ds ekeys esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g
(Downloaded on 21/01/2021 at 08:29:24 PM)
(11 of 13) [CMA-893/2020]
vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS [krjukd izd`fr ds eky dk ifjogu dk i`'Bkadu okgu pkyd dh n{krk ugha c<krk gS o ,sls i`'Bkadu ds vHkko esa uk gh okgu pkyd dh n{krk dks de djrk gSA gLrxr ekeys esa Mhty Hazardous goods dh Js.kh esa vkrk gks] ;g rF; chek daiuh }kjk lkfcr ugha fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj chek ikWfylh dh "krZ dk mYy?kau gqvk gks] ;g rF; lkfcr ugha fd;k x;k gSA mDr nq?kZVuk okgu pkyu ds ifj.kkeLo:i ?kfVr gqbZ uk fd dsfedy lsA ,slh fLFkfr esa chek daiuh viuh vkifRr;ksa dks lkfcr ugha dj ik;k gSA chek daiuh dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`'VkUrksa 1. Smt. Kamla Vs Smt. Archana HC Bombay dt. 16.04.2019. 2- Oriental Insurance Company Vs Sony Cheriyan SC dt. 19-08-2019 & 3-III (2009) Page 818 Nagamani & Anr, Vs Singaravelu & Anr. ds ekeyksa esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr gLrxr ekeys ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fHkUurk gksus ds dkj.k p"ik gksuk ugha ik;s tkrs gSA D;ksafd gLrxr ekeys esa Vsadj esa Hkjk gqvk Mhty Hazardous goods dh Js.kh esa vkrk gks] chek daiuh lkfcr ugha dj ik;h gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa chek daiuh dks vius nkf;Ro ls eqDr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA"
The findings recorded by the Tribunal that there was no hazardous goods i.e. Diesel in the offending vehicle at the time of accident, has been proved by cogent evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to controvert the finding of fact so recorded by the Tribunal. Thus, the findings of the Tribunal that at the time of accident the Tanker was emptied and there was no hazardous goods i.e. Diesel in the Tanker are uphold and call for no interference by this Court.
Table-III appended with Section 137 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, admittedly, does not prescribe "Diesel" as a hazardous goods, though, the list is very exhaustive and about 2319 substances are mentioned. The absence of Diesel in that category specifically shows the intention of the legislator of not including Diesel in the category of hazardous goods. There is no reason for this Court to assume that Diesel is included in Entry No.1656 i.e. Petroleum Crude Oil. Learned counsel for the (Downloaded on 21/01/2021 at 08:29:24 PM) (12 of 13) [CMA-893/2020] appellant has not brought to the notice of this Court any other provision or any order showing the Diesel to be categorized as a hazardous goods. Therefore, there is no reason for this Court to assume or consider Diesel to be included in the category of hazardous goods as mentioned in Table-III under Rule 137 (Supra). In any case, at the time of accident, the Tanker was emptied and there was no Diesel in it. Therefore, the argument of the counsel that it should be implied that even if a Tanker is empty, the conditions of the vehicle carrying the hazardous goods should be considered in the present case is only noted to be rejected. It has come on record that Shafi Khan, who was the driver of the Tanker, was holding a valid driving license at the time of accident and therefore, all intents and purposes the same should be considered as the "perfect driving license" even as per the policy. Since, there are no special conditions which have been brought to the notice of this Court the "perfect driving license"
should mean a valid driving license issued by the competent authority for driving a heavy motor vehicle. In the present case Shafi Khan was holding the same and therefore, the driver of the Tanker was an eligible person to drive the same at the time of accident.
In this view of the matter, the appellant cannot be escaped from the liability to pay compensation on the ground that driver was having no authority to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that driver Shafi Khan was eligible to drive the Tanker at the time of accident is perfectly justified and upheld.(Downloaded on 21/01/2021 at 08:29:24 PM)
(13 of 13) [CMA-893/2020] The arguments of the learned counsel that endorsement for driving the vehicle(Tanker) with hazardous goods was made on 09.04.2012 is also of not much help to the appellant as no endorsement of the license of Shafi Khan will not dis-entitle him from driving the heavy motor vehicle and therefore, the same is of no consequence in the present case and does not help the appellant to disown the liability on this ground.
The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the driver had emptied the vehicle at the location as directed by his master prior to the accident will have no bearing as admittedly at the time of accident, the vehicle(Tanker) was not carrying any hazardous goods and the Tanker was empty.
In view of the discussion made above, the findings on the Issue No.2 require no interference by this Court and therefore, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company are bereft of merits. The same are, therefore, dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 95-100/VivekM/-(Downloaded on 21/01/2021 at 08:29:24 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)