The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Fanesh Pal

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.01.09 14:08:07 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:970

¶4

AFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 563 of 2022

¶7

*** -** The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No. 03, R.K. Plaza, Pachpedi Naka, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh Represented Through In-Charge, T.P. Hub, T.P. Hub Office, 1st Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Rajiv Plaza, Opposite Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - Fanesh Pal S/o Shri Durga Prasad Pal, Aged About 31 Years R/o Bhathapara, Belar, Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh……… Claimant

¶11

2 - Yuvraj Kuldeep, S/o Shri Krishna Kuldeep, Aged About 31 Years R/o Markatola, Thana Korar, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ..............Driver

¶12

3 - Chandraprakash Thakur, S/o Shri Narayan Singh Thakur, At- Rice Millpara, Singarbhatha, Kanker, Chhattisgarh......................Owner

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Appellant/ Insurance Company	: Mr. R.N. Pusty and Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocates
For Respondent No. 1/Claimant	: Mr. Priya Kaiwart, Advocate holding the brief of the Mr. Akhand Pratap Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3/Owner	: Mr. A.L. Singroul and Ms. Shaleeni Jangde, Advocates
For Respondent No. 2/Driver	: None, though served

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board

¶16

07/01/2026

¶17

The appellant/Insurance Company has challenged the liability part of award passed by the learned XII^th Additional Motor Accident Claims

¶18

2

¶19

Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 653/2018 dated 11.01.2022, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 18,91,512/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Yogita Pal and fastened liability with the Insurance Company.

¶20

The facts, in brief, are that on 30.07.2018 at around 12:45 hours, deceased Yogita Pal was travelling on her motorbike bearing registration No. CG-04 / LP-3243 and she was dashed by a Oil-Tanker bearing registration No. CG-19 / H-0919. Husband of the deceased filed claim case, inter alia on the ground that at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 26 years and earning Rs.9,530/- per month. He claimed a sum of Rs.18 lacs.

¶21

The Insurance Company filed reply to the claim petition and specific plea was taken that the driver of the offending Oil-Tanker, bearing registration No. No. CG-19 / H-0919, did not have valid driving licence to drive a hazardous vehicle. It is also pleaded that there was no endorsement over the driving licence issued in favour of the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶22

The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and thereafter award was passed.

¶23

Mr. R.N. Pusty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would vehemently argue that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving licence to drive a hazardous vehicle. He would contend that an Oil-Tanker comes within the category of hazardous vehicle. He would contend that according to sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short ‘Rules of 1989), there must be an endorsement in the driving licence of the applicant to the effect that he is authorised to drive a goods carriage

¶24

3

¶25

carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life. He would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal fastened the liability on the Insurance Company on the ground that the endorsement to drive a hazardous vehicle neither increases the efficiency of the driver nor by its absence reduces such efficiency in any manner and for driving such a vehicle, no further expertise or driving skill is required. Mr. R.N. Pusty would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal further recorded a finding that the Oil-Tanker was empty and breach of non-compliance of statutory requirement would not absolve the liability of the Insurance Company. He would submit that the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal are erroneous. Mr. R.N. Pusty has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chatha Service Station Vs. Lalmati Devi and Others , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 756 .

¶26

On the other hand, Mr. A.L. Singroul, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3/Owner would oppose the submission made by Mr. R.N. Pusty. He would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has considered this issue at length and decided it against the Insurance Company. He would submit that endorsement according to the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules 1989 would neither increases the efficiency of the driver nor by its absence reduces such efficiency. He would contend that the Oil-Tanker was empty and such vehicle could have been driven by any ordinary driver. He would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has passed well reasoned award and appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶27

4

¶28

Ms. Priya Kaiwart, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/Claimant would support the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal.

¶29

I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records of the learned Claims Tribunal with utmost circumspection.

¶30

Admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle had driving licence to drive heavy transport vehicle, but there was no endorsement to drive hazardous or dangerous vehicle. A specific plea was taken by the Insurance Company in the reply filed to the claim petition. The Insurance Company examined Sudip Thakur, Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company as NAW-2, who deposed that in the driving licence there was no endorsement to drive hazardous vehicle. In crossexamination, this witness remained firm. Prakash Chand Dhruv, Assistant Grade-II, Licence Department, District Transport Office, Kanker examined as NAW-1 stated that there was no endorsement in the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle to drive hazardous vehicle. In cross-examination, this witness remained consistent.

¶31

Rule 9 of the Rules 1989 deals with educational qualifications for drivers of goods carriages carrying dangerous or hazardous goods. Sub-rule (3) of the Rules 1989 states that there must be an endorsement in the driving licence of the applicant to the effect that he is authorised to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous vehicle. Rule 9 (3) of the Rules 1989 is reproduced herein below:-

¶32

“ 9(3). The licensing authority, on receipt of the application referred to in sub-rule (2), shall make an endorsement in the driving licence of the applicant to the effect that he is

¶33

5

¶34

authorised to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life.”

¶35

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chatha Service Station (supra) while dealing with similar issue held that Rule 9 requires that 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 specified in the VIII^th Schedule of the Constitution of India and English and also possess a certificate of having successfully passed a course consisting of the syllabus detailed thereunder. It is further held that according to provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules 1989, a driver cannot drive an empty goods vehicle intended to carry hazardous goods, designed specifically for that purpose. It is further held that the submission with regard to efficiency of a driver in absence of endorsement is in contravention to the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules 1989. The relevant paragraphs nos. 9, 11, 12 and 19 are reproduced herein below:-

¶36

“ 9. Likewise in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. A. Verlaxmi, 2013 SCC OnLine Chh 272 , the Chhattisgarh High Court considering the absence of an endorsement under Rule 9 held that the endorsement neither increases the efficiency of the driver not by its absence reduces such efficiency in any manner. It was categorically held that “ for driving such a vehicle, no further expertise or driving skill is required, ” (sic) which interpretation unfortunately does not flow from a plain reading of Rule 9 and the syllabus prescribed therein.

¶37

11. Rule 9 requires that “ 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 specified in the VIII^th Schedule of the Constitution of India and English and also possess a certificate of having successfully passed a course consisting of the syllabus

¶38

6

¶39

detailed thereunder ”. The syllabus stipulated cannot be found to be that which is confined to proper care being taken of the dangerous or hazardous goods carried in the vehicle; which is only one part of the three-part syllabus tabulated in the Rules as parts ‘A’, ‘B’, & ‘C’. Parts ‘A’ & ‘B’ specifically emphasise the driving skill and efficiency that is required while carrying dangerous or hazardous goods; the Product Safety, including Product Information and Emergency Procedures having been delineated in Part ‘C’. The syllabus in Part ‘A’ includes defensive driving and Part ‘B’ is with respect to advanced driving skills and training. Under ‘Product Safety’ comes the emergency procedures to deal with spillage handling, firefighting, toxic release control, first aid, use of protective equipment etc. The statute having provided for a course of three days and the rules having prescribed the syllabus; which prescription is not confined to the product safety or safe handling of goods, while in transportation or when put in danger, we cannot find the absence of such endorsement of the training course having been undertaken to be a venial breach, not absolving the Insurance Company of its liability.

¶40

12. We have to also emphasise that in the present case, the tanker was carrying oil; for which it is intended, while the accident occurred. We hasten to add that we may not be misunderstood as agreeing to the corollary to the argument that a licence holder without the endorsement under Rule 9, could drive an empty goods vehicle intended to carry hazardous goods, designed specifically for that purpose. The breach of non-compliance of the statutory requirement to undergo a training course to upskill the driving efficiency and product safety cannot be brushed aside as a technical breach not contributing to the accident.

¶41

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 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.”

¶42

7

¶43

In the matter of Chatha Service Station (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the owner of the vehicle, but at the same time directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimants and recover it from owner of the OilTanker.

¶44

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chatha Service Station (supra) , the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is allowed in part . The liability is fastened with the owner of the offending vehicle / respondent No. 3 with stipulation that the Insurance Company shall pay the amount of compensation to the claimant and recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle/Oil-Tanker.

¶45

The award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above.

¶46

It appears that pursuant to interim order dated 28.04.2022, the Insurance Company has already deposited 60% of the award amount. The remaining part of the award amount shall be satisfied by the Insurance Company within a period of 60 days and thereafter the Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the entire amount of compensation with interest from the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

vatti

8

HEAD NOTE

Rule 9 (3) of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 – In absence of endorsement to drive dangerous or hazardous vehicle, a driver having transport licence is not authorized to drive vehicle carrying dangerous or hazardous goods.

¶53

dsUnzh; eksVj ;ku fu;e] 1989 dk fu;e 9¼3½ & [krjukd ;k ifjladVe; izdfr ds ifjogu ;ku pykus gsrq i"Bkadu ds vHkko esa] ifjogu vuqKfIr j[kus okyk pkyd [krjukd ;k ifjladVe; izdfr ds eky <ksus okys ifjogu ;ku pykus ds fy, vf/kdr ugha gS A

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Fanesh Pal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Fanesh Pal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kulwant Chawla Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Harish Chandra Nishad Vs Shri Tikeshwar

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs Bimla Sahu

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Soshan Lakra

Awadh Kishore Vs Harjeet Singh

Cholamandlam General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mrs. Anita Netam