lorry, while he was riding his motor cycle. Examination of the finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to liability, makes it clear that the Tribunal held that the driver of the tanker lorry did not possess the valid and effective driving licence to drive vehicle carrying goods which are dangerous or hazardous in nature and the driver of the tanker lorry, as per Exhibit R4-DL extract issued by the competent authority, authorised the driver to drive only Heavy Passenger Vehicle and does not contain the endorsement/licence to drive the hazardous vehicle, as per paragraphs 17 and 18 of the impugned judgment and award. In order to discern the said fact, we have carefully scrutinised the evidence of RW2 and RW3. Testimony of RW2 would establishes the fact that the driver of the tanker lorry possessed driving licence to drive Heavy Passenger Vehicle and as on the date of the accident, the Tanker was empty and same was not filled with any dangerous or hazardous substance. At this juncture, it is also useful to refer the application IA.II of 2015 filed by the appellant in MFA 1408 of 2015 wherein, the applicant-Insured, produced certificate styled as “Hazardous Goods Transportation” issued by the competent authority, i.e. Regional Transport
