Endorsement to Drive Hazardous Goods Vehicles is Mandatory Even if the Vehicle is Empty

The case arises from a motor vehicle accident involving a Tanker (CG-14, A-1871).

The claimants (widow and minor children of the deceased Laxman Yadav) sought enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur.

The National Insurance Company Limited appealed the award, seeking exoneration from liability on the grounds that the driver of the offending Tanker did not possess a specific license endorsement to drive a vehicle carrying dangerous or hazardous substances.

The Tribunal had fastened liability on the insurer despite the lack of endorsement.

1. Whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation when the driver of a hazardous goods vehicle (Tanker) lacks the specific license endorsement required under Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.

2. Whether the lack of endorsement is relevant even if the tanker was empty at the time of the accident.

3. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires enhancement based on the age of the deceased.

Rule 9(3) and (4) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, which mandates a specific endorsement by the Licensing Authority for persons driving goods carriages carrying dangerous or hazardous substances.

The Supreme Court precedent in Chatha Service Station v. Lalmati Devi & Others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 7565), which held that the absence of such an endorsement constitutes a breach of policy conditions.

The principle from Rajesh Singh v. Hardeep Singh (2017 SCC OnLine P 32616), asserting that the requirement for a valid license exists regardless of whether the tanker is empty or full during the journey.

The Court reasoned that under Rule 9, the owner has a primary responsibility to ensure the driver possesses the necessary statutory endorsement for hazardous goods vehicles.

The Court noted that while the driver held a heavy goods vehicle license, the absence of the specific endorsement required by the Rules meant he was not "duly licensed" for that specific class of vehicle.

The Court noted that the vehicle remains a goods carriage meant for hazardous materials, and the driver's qualification cannot fluctuate based on the cargo present at a specific moment.

Regarding the claimants' appeal, the Court found that the Tribunal correctly estimated the deceased’s age at 32 based on the widow’s own testimony stating he was 35, thereby rejecting the claim for a higher multiplier based on a 30-year age bracket.

The High Court partly allowed the Insurance Company’s appeal (MAC No. 269/2020) and dismissed the Claimants' appeal (MAC No. 2284/2019).

Applying the "pay and recover" principle, the Court directed the National Insurance Company to first satisfy the award in favor of the claimants and subsequently recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle.