NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs Smt. Laxmi Yadav

1

2026:CGHC:20913
AFR
ASHOK
SAHU

Digitally signed
by ASHOK
SAHU
Date:
2026.05.06
16:50:14 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 2284 of 2019
1 - Smt. Laxmi Yadav, W/o. Late Laxman Yadav, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o. Village Chandandih, P.S. Amanaka, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Deepak Yadav, S/o. Late Laxman Yadav, Aged About 10 Years, Minor
Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Laxmi Yadav, W/o. Late
Laxman Yadav, R/o. Village Chandandih, P.S. Amanaka, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
3 - Kumari Priya Yadav, D/o. Late Laxman Yadav, Aged About 9 Years,
Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Laxmi Yadav, W/o.
Late Laxman Yadav, R/o. Village Chandandih, P.S. Amanaka, District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Roshan Yadav, S/o. Late Laxman Yadav, Aged About 7 Years, Minor
Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Laxmi Yadav, W/o. Late
Laxman Yadav, R/o. Village Chandandih, P.S. Amanaka, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
....Claimants
--- Appellants
versus

2
1 - Doulat Ram Dhidhi, S/o. Harilal Dhidhi, Aged About 27 Years, R/o.
Village Lakhauli, P.S. Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of
Offending Tanker No. CG-14, A-1871)
2 - Smt. Uma Kushwah, D/o. Ajay Singh Kushwah, R/o. Vishal Nagar
Telibandha, Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
(Owner Of Offending Tanker No. CG-14, A-1871)
3 - National Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office, Beside Of Lal Ganga Shopping Mal, G.E. Road,
Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Tanker No.
CG-14, A-1871)
--- Respondents
For Appellants : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate
&
MAC No. 269 of 2020
National Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager,
Division Office - Besides Of Lalganga Shopping Mall, G.E. Road,
Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle
Tanker Bearing Registration No. C.G.-14-A-1871)
--- Appellant
Versus
1 - Smt. Laxmi Yadav, W/o. Late Laxman Yadav, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o. Village Chandandih, Police Station Amanaka, District - Raipur
Chhattisgarh

3
2 - Deepak Yadav, S/o. Late Laxman Yadav, Aged About 10 Years, Minor
Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Laxmi Yadav, W/o. Late
Laxman Yadav, R/o. Village Chandandih, P.S. Amanaka, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
3 - Kumari Priya Yadav, D/o. Late Laxman Yadav, Aged About 9 Years,
Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Laxmi Yadav, W/o.
Late Laxman Yadav, R/o. Village Chandandih, P.S. Amanaka, District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Roshan Yadav, S/o. Late Laxman Yadav, Aged About 7 Years, Minor
Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Laxmi Yadav, W/o. Late
Laxman Yadav, R/o. Village Chandandih, P.S. Amanaka, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
……..Claimants
5 - Daulat Ram Dhidhi, S/o. Harilal Dhidhi, Aged About 27 Years, R/o.
Village Lakholi, Police Station Arang, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh
(Driver Of Offending Vehicle Tanker Bearing Registration No. C.G. -14-
A-1871).
6 - Smt. Uma Kushwah, W/o. Ajay Singh Kushwah, R/o. Vishal Nagar,
Telibandha, Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, District - Raipur
Chhattisgarh ( Owner Of Offending Vehicle Tanker Bearing Registration
No. C.G.-14-A-1871)
--- Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate
For Respondents No.1
to 4
: Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, Advocate
For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate

4
(Single Bench)
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order on Board
05.05.2026
1. Against the impugned award dated 24.09.2019 passed by the
learned Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in
Claim Case No.211/2015, the claimants have preferred MAC No.
2284 of 2019 seeking enhancement of the compensation amount,
whereas the insurance company has preferred MAC No.269 of
2020 seeking exoneration from liability to pay the compensation.
2. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the
appeals, they are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of
by this common order.
3. Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel appearing for the insurance
company, would submit that since the vehicle involved was a
Tanker, which was carrying dangerous & hazardous substance,
therefore, endorsement in the licence to that extent was required
and since the driver did not have the requisite endorsement,
therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of
compensation in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the
1
matter of Chatha Service Station v. Lalmati Devi & Others . He
1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 756

5
would further submit that even though the vehicle was not carrying
dangerous & hazardous substance then also the endorsement will
be necessary in light of the decision of the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana in the matter of Rajesh Singh & Anr. v. Hardeep Singh
2
& Another .
4.
Ms. Prachi Singh, learned counsel appearing for the claimants,
would submit that the amount of compensation is not just and
proper, therefore, it deserves to be enhanced.
5. Mr. Sanjeev Verma, learned counsel appearing for the owner of the
vehicle, would support the impugned award and submit that the
appeals of the insurance company & claimants both deserve to be
dismissed.
6.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions made herein-above and went through the records with
utmost circumspection.
Appeal of the Insurance Company i.e. MAC No.269/2020
7. Sub-Rule (3) and (4) of Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules,
1989 requires that Licensing Authority, on receipt of application
referred to sub-rule (2), shall make an endorsement in the driving
licence of the applicant to the effect that he is authorised to drive a
2 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 3261

6
goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous
substance. Admittedly, the vehicle was a Tanker and it was goods
carrying vehicle registered for carrying dangerous/ hazardous
substance and driver of the said vehicle did have licence to drive
the heavy goods vehicle but did not have necessary endorsement to
drive that vehicle as required by the Rules. However, the learned
Claims Tribunal in light of the decision of this Court in the matter
3
of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. A. Verlaxmi did not found
favour the plea of the insurance company and proceeded to impose
liability upon the insurance company. However, in this regard, the
decision of the Supreme Court in Chatha Service Station (supra)
may be noticed herein profitably, in which the decision of this
Court in A. Verlaxmi (supra) was also noticed and it was not
approved by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court and observed in
para 19 as under :
“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
3 2013 SCC OnLine Chh 272

7
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.
8.
As such, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court found that the
driver did not have necessary endorsement to drive the vehicle
carrying dangerous & hazardous substance and proceeded to
exonerate the insurance company and fastened liability upon the
insurance company, but principle of pay and recover has been
applied. However, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the
matter of Rajesh Singh (supra) considering Rule 9(3) of the
Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 has clearly held that even the
Tanker was empty then also the driver must have valid driving
licence with an endorsement to drive the vehicle carrying
dangerous & hazardous substance and observed as under :
“13. A perusal of Rule 9(3) reveals that the licensing
authority on receipt of application which is referred to in
clause 2 has to make an endorsement on the driving
licence and the words used there are “ shall ”. When the
owner had engaged the driver it was his responsibility to
see that the licence had the necessary endorsement. He
has failed to discharge his duty/responsibility placed
upon a transporter/owner of goods carriage. The
Tribunal had rightly exonerated the insurance company
since there was a breach of the provisions of the
insurance policy. The driving licence could not be
accepted as a valid licence. The argument that on that
particular journey the oil tanker was empty, would be

8
meaningless. The oil tanker is used for transporting oil
and the licence does not show any endorsement. It
signifies that the driver did not have a valid and
effective licence to drive a goods carriage which was
meant for transporting hazardous and dangerous goods.
There is no infirmity in the finding recorded by the
Tribunal on this aspect.”
9. In that view of the matter, the insurance company will be
exonerated from the liability. However, the principle of pay and
recover is applied, therefore, the insurance company shall first pay
the amount of compensation and thereafter recover from the owner
of the vehicle. Accordingly, the appeal of the insurance company is
partly allowed.
Appeal of the Claimants i.e. MAC No.2284/2019
10.
Learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that the
deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of accident, whereas
the learned Claims Tribunal has taken the age of deceased to be 32
years, therefore, the age of deceased should be taken as 30 years
and multiplier of 17 will apply. However, as per the statement of
the claimant No.1, Smt. Laxmi Yadav, she herself has stated the age
of her husband to be 35 years, therefore, 32 years age has rightly
been taken by the learned Claims Tribunal and in no other heads,
the compensation deserves to be enhanced. As such, the amount of
compensation awarded to the claimants is just & proper, therefore,
no interference is called for.

9
11. In the result, appeal of the insurance company is partly allowed and
the appeal of the claimants is dismissed. No cost(s).
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Ashok