Motor Vehicle Rules | Absence Of Endorsement On Driving License For Transporting Hazardous Goods Doesn’t Disentitle Trained Driver: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that where there is no evidence that a goods carriage/ tanker was carrying hazardous material, the mere absence of an endorsement under Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 cannot be construed as a breach of statutory conditions sufficient to grant recovery rights to the insurer.
Justice Amit Mahajan observed, “A perusal of Rule 9 of the MV Rules mandates that the driver must have knowledge and training so that no causality of any kind takes place on account of careless or negligent driving — not necessarily a formal endorsement whose purpose is also the same.”
In the case at hand, one Neeraj Kumar, while travelling on his motorcycle, met with a fatal accident involving a goods carriage driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner by appellant Tufani Yadav and owned by appellant Amit Sharma.
The present appeal was preferred against MACT order whereby compensation for a sum of ₹35,84,328/- along with interest was awarded in favour of the claimants, with the right of recovery granted to the insurer.
The recovery order was based on the absence of an endorsement on the driving license in terms of Rule 9.
The appellants claimed that the driver was duly qualified and competent to operate the vehicle in question, he had duly undergone the requisite training for transportation of hazardous goods and thus, a mere absence of endorsement on the driving license ought not to be construed as a breach of policy conditions sufficient to invoke the pay and recover principle.
Reliance was placed on a Circular issued by the Delhi Transport Department which acknowledges that endorsements in terms of Rule 9 had not been consistently made by the licencing authorities. They contended that in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the driver was disqualified or that the insured had violated any statutory obligation.
Respondent-Insurance Company on the other hand opposed the appeal and placed reliance on Mangla Goods Carrier v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2023) where the High Court held that endorsement of the driving license for driving a transport vehicle carrying hazardous goods is a mandatory condition and mere completion of training is not sufficient.
At the outset, the High Court observed that there was no evidence on record to substantiate the assertion that the vehicle in question was at the relevant time carrying hazardous goods.
“It is a matter of common experience and logic, as pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants, that any oil tanker entering an oil depot is likely to be empty after unloading its contents or would be arriving to load a fresh consignment. The DAR is conspicuously silent on this crucial factual aspect…In the absence of such evidence, the presumption that the vehicle was transporting dangerous goods cannot be sustained,” it observed.
Even otherwise, the Court noted that the appellant-driver was holding a valid driving license at the time of the accident and had undergone the requisite training for driving vehicles carrying hazardous goods.
Thus, it held that the driver or the owner cannot be saddled with liability for not meeting the “ministerial” requirement of endorsement referred to in Rule 9 of the MV Rules. It observed that endorsement is “not a prerequisite that nullifies the competency or training of the driver.”
Court then took note of the Delhi government Circular and noted that it merely directs licencing authorities to make such endorsements henceforth. It does not cast any burden upon existing license holders to seek endorsements retrospectively nor does it affect the validity of licenses or the training already acquired by drivers.
“Therefore, in the present case, where the driver had undergone requisite training, was in possession of a valid license, and where there is no evidence that the tanker was carrying hazardous goods at the relevant time, the mere absence of endorsement under Rule 9 of the MV Rules cannot be construed as a breach of statutory conditions sufficient to grant recovery rights to the insurer,” the Court held and rejected insurer’s plea for recovery rights.
Appearance: For the Appellants : Mr. Pradeep Rana, Ms. Riya Rana, Mr. Ankit Rana, Mr. Kartik Gadi, Mr. Robin Singh, Mr. Deepak Chillar & Mr. Tushar Rohmetra, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Aditya Kumar & Ms. Ila Nath, Advocates for Respondent No.1.
Case title: Amit Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Pvt. Ltd And Ors
Case no.: MAC.APP. 211/2023
