before the Court, particularly, considering the document Exs.P2 and P3, nothing is placed before the Court that the vehicle which was driven by the driver he was carrying the hazardous material in the said vehicle and though the Insurance Company took the said defence in order to substantiate the same, nothing is placed on record except examining the official of the Insurance Company i.e., RW.1. Hence, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation unless the Insurance Company is proved the fact that the vehicle which was involved in the accident was carrying the hazardous material at the time of the accident. Merely because it was a Petrol Tanker, the very contention of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted. No doubt, it requires separate special training and the endorsement to drive the hazardous vehicle, which is carrying the hazardous material. But in the case on hand, no such material is placed before the Tribunal to come to a conclusion that he was driving a hazardous material at the time of the accident. Hence, the very contention of the learned
