# National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Smt. Savita Katiyar & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 31 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-02-23 - **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/national-insurance-co-ltd-v-smt-savita-katiyar-ors-43629 - **Pages:** 6 ## Text 4 All. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Savita Katiyar & Ors. 31 petitioner, then petitioner has to blame himself and it cannot be said that the punishment order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Furthermore, petitioner has failed to establish the prejudice which has been caused to him. Therefore, the proposition of law laid down in Rajendra Prasad Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and others; [2004(22)LCD 155] which has been relied upon by the petitioner is of no avail. 12. In view of the aforesaid, this court do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, which is hereby approved. 13. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy. ---------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.02.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J. First Appeal From Order No.- 578 Of 2016 National Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Smt. Savita Katiyar & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for Appellant: Vipin Chandra Dixit HELD: 1. The only ground pressed by the insurer was that the driver did not have an endorsement on his licence for carrying hazardous goods. 2. The Court held this ground to be meritless because: (a) The record showed the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence to drive a **transport vehicle** since 12.10.2000. (b) A tanker is included within the definition of a transport vehicle under Section 2(47) read with Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act. (c) The insurer failed to show that on the date of accident (04.05.2010) the tanker was **carrying hazardous or dangerous goods**, which is the only situation where Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 would apply. 3. Since hazardous material was not being transported, endorsement under Rule 9 was **not required**. 4. The Claims Tribunal correctly held the driving licence valid on the date of accident. 32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 5. No other ground on merits or quantum was pressed; the compensation awarded (₹2,85,000/-) remained undisputed. 6. Finding no illegality in the award dated 16.11.2015, the appeal was dismissed. 7. Statutory deposit to be remitted to the Tribunal for adjustment. Case Law Discussed: No case law discussed in this judgment. (Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.) 1. Heard Sri V.C. Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal has been filed challenging the award dated 16.11.2015 passed by he Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.16, Kanpur Nagar awarding a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- to the claimants-respondents on account of death of the deceased Pramant Katiyar, student of M.B.A. Final Semester in an accident on 4.5.2010 caused by tanker bearing registration No. U.P.V.3339. The aforesaid Sri Pramant Katiyar died during course of treatment on 16.5.2010. The only submission of learned counsel for the appellant raised before this court is that the endorsement for carrying hazardous good was made by transport authorities on the driving licence of the driver of the offending tanker w.e.f. 11.6.2014 while the accident was caused on 4.5.2010 and as such the driver of the tanker in question was not having a valid driving licence for driving tanker. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that this is the only ground on which this appeal is being pressed. 3. He further submits that there is no dispute on quantum of compensation. On the basis of the aforesaid argument he submits that since the driver of the tanker in question was not possessing a valid driving licence, as such no liability of the insurer-appellant can be fixed as the tanker in question was being driven in breach of the conditions of insurance policy. 4. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that Sri Pramant Katiyar received grave injuries in accident on 4.5.2010 caused by the aforesaid offending tanker on Panki Kalyanpur road near Shivali road crossing. The driver of the tanker left the tanker on the spot and fled away. The aforesaid Sri Pramant Katiyar was admitted in hospital where he died during the course of treatment on 16.5.2010. He was a meritorious student of M.B.A. Final Semester and had undergone summer training in Coca Cola Company. 6. The claimants-respondents are the parent of the aforesaid deceased. They filed a claim petition no.05 of 2011 before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar which was 4 All. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Savita Katiyar & Ors. 33 decided by the impugned award dated 16.11.2015 awarding a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- which includes expences in treatment amounting to Rs.85,000/- and cremation expences amounting to Rs.2000/-. Aggrieved with this award the appellant has filed the present appeal on the only ground pressed before this court that the endorsement of dangerous and hazardous goods was made on the driving licence of the driver of the tanker effective from 11.6.2014 while the accident took place on 4.5.2010. 7. Before the Tribunal oral evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and documentary evidences regarding driving licence etc. were led. The Tribunal considered the facts and evidence on record and came to the conclusion that driver of the offending truck was having valid driving licence as on date and time of the accident. 8. A copy of the extract of driving licence of the driver of the offending truck has been filed as Annexure no. 2 in which it is shown that the driver Sri Pankaj Kumar Shakya was having a driving licence No.U.P. 76/1999/000137 dated 22.7.1999. The said paper contains current details as well as subsequent transactions under heading 'Current details' at serial No.3, Transport vehicle is mentioned and the driving licence is shown to be effective from 12.10.2000. Under the heading "subsequent transactions" in the fifth column it is not mentioned that the driving licence was not valid for any period after its grant. This means that the driving licence of the driver of the offending tanker for transport vehicle was always valid since its grant on 12.10.2000. 9. It is not in dispute that the driver of the offending tanker was having a valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle. The only ground set up by appellant in the present appeal is that there was no endorsement for goods of dangerous or hazardous nature. Learned counsel for the appellant at this stage referred to Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rule, 1989 to submit that the requirement as provided under the said Rules was not fulfilled and it was only on fulfilment of these requirement that the endorsement was made for carrying hazardous goods w.e.f. 11.6.2014. 10. I find no substance in this submission for reasons that; firstly it is not the case of the appellant that as on the date and time of accident the tanker in question was carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life and secondly, the words 'transport vehicle' has been defined under Section 2(47) and driving licence to drive a transport vehicle is granted under Section 10 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which undisputedly includes a tanker. From the impugned award it appears that in evidence driver of the tanker Sri Pankaj Kumar Shakya was examined, copies of registration certificate, insurance policy, fitness certificate, driving licence, certificate no.415 issued by I.O.C. and a certificate of senior terminal manager of Indian Oil Corporation were filed being paper No.16-C to 20-C. That apart particulars relating to driving licence of the driver of the tanker were also filed being paper No. 153-C. These documents were duly proved. 11. Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 provides as under: 34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES "9. Educational qualifications for drivers of goods carriages carrying dangerous or hazardous goods.--(1) One year from the date of commencement of Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1993, 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 out of those [specified in the VIII Schedule of the Constitution] and English and also possess a certificate of having successfully passed a course consisting of following syllabus and periodicity connected with the transport of such goods. Period of training Place of training Syllabus 3 days At any institute recognised by the State Government A. Defensive driving Questionnaire Cause of accidents Accidents' statistics Driver's personal fitness Car condition Braking distance Highway driving Road/ Pedestrian crossing Railway crossing Adapting to weather Head on collision Rear end collision Night driving Films and discussion Duration of training for A & B--1st and 2nd day B. Advanced driving skills and training (i) Discussion Before starting During driving Before stopping Checklist outside/below/near vehicle product side inside vehicle correct speed/gear signalling lane control overtaking/giving side speed limit/safe distance driving on slopes safe stopping place, signalling, road 4 All. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Savita Katiyar & Ors. 35 condition After stopping [Night driving (ii) Field test/training width, preventing vehicle movement wheel clocks vehicle attendance mandatory lighting requirements headlamp alignment use of dipped beam] 1 driver at a lime C. Product safety UN Panel Product information Emergency procedure UN classification Duration Hazchem Code of training Toxicity, for (C) flammability Third day. other definitions Tremcards CIS/MSDS Importance of temperature pressure, level Explosive limits Knowledge about equipment Communication Spillage handling Use of PPE Fire fighting First Aid Toxic release control Protection of wells, rivers, lakes, etc. Use of protective equipment Knowledge about valves, etc.] (2) The holder of a driving licence possessing the minimum educational qualification or the certificate referred to in sub-rule (1), shall make an application in writing on a plain paper alongwith his driving licence and the relevant certificate to the licensing authority in whose jurisdiction he resides for making necessary entries in his driving licence and if the driving licence is in Form 7 the application shall be accompanied by the fee as is referred to in Serial No. 8 of the Table to rule 32. (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 authorised to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life. (4) A licensing authority other than the original licensing authority making any such endorsement shall communicate the fact to the original licensing authority." 36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 12. Perusal of Rule 9 of the Rules indicates 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 the driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, also has the ability to read and write at least one Indian language out of those specified in the VIII Schedule of the Constitution and English and also possess a certificate of having successfully passed a course consisting of the syllabus as mentioned in the said rule and periodicity connected with the transport of such goods and for endorsement the driving licence holder shall move an application before the prescribed authority who shall make the endorsement in the driving licence to the said effect. 13. Rule 9 of the Rules shall apply where a transport vehicle is carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life. It is not the case of the appellant that as on the date and time of accident the tanker in question was carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life. Since it is undisputed that driver of the tanker in question was having a valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle effective from 12.10.2000 and it is not the case of the appellant that on the date and time of accident the tanker was carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature and the documentary evidences as aforementioned brought on record before the Tribunal could not be disputed by the appellants and, therefore, I do not find any error in the impugned award of the Tribunal. 14. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this appeal. 15. Consequently, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 16. Statutory deposit made before this Court shall be remitted to the tribunal concerned for adjustment. ---------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.03.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Second Appeal No.- 1106 Of 2015 Amarnath ...Appellant Versus Bhuwaneshwar Prasad Gupta ...Respondent Counsel for Appellant: Virendra Singh Counsel for Respondent: