Unlicensed Driver's Liability for Accident involving Hazardous Goods Vehicle

The Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment in the civil appeals arising from the case of M/S. Chatha Service Station Versus Lalmati Devi & Ors., wherein the owner of an oil tanker challenged the High Court of Punjab and Haryana's orders which had upheld the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's direction for the insurance company to pay compensation to the families of the deceased (a bicyclist and a pedestrian) in a motor accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the appellant's oil tanker, and then recover the amount from the owner and driver, as the driver lacked a valid license to drive a vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods.

The primary contention before the Supreme Court was against the order to the insurance company to "pay and recover" which was as argued by the counsel for the appellant. The appellant contended that the failure to endorse the driver's license under Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, cannot be a violation of policy conditions because the vehicle was not loaded with hazardous or dangerous goods when the accident occurred.

Furthermore, dependence was made on a training certificate obtained at the first appeal level, indicating the driver was qualified to drive the vehicle. Nevertheless, the insurance company replied that Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and Rule 9 require certain training and endorsement for drivers of vehicles that transport hazardous material, of which deficiency the driver in this case acknowledged. The High Court had already rejected the belatedly produced training certificate.

The Supreme Court observed that the syllabus under Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, is not confined to the safe handling of dangerous goods but also emphasizes driving skills and efficiency required for such vehicles. The Court explicitly disagreed with the interpretations of some High Courts that considered the absence of such an endorsement a mere technical breach, unrelated to driving skills.

The Apex Court highlighted that Section 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act speaks to additions to a driving license for different classes or descriptions of vehicles, indicating that a license to drive a general transport vehicle does not automatically qualify one to drive a vehicle carrying hazardous goods. Furthermore, the Court also noted that the oil tanker was indeed carrying oil at the time of the accident, negating the appellant's claim otherwise.

The Apex Court also upheld the High Court's decision to reject the training certificate produced at the appellate stage due to lack of explanation for its non-production before the Tribunal, raising suspicion about its veracity given the driver's testimony.

In its conclusion, the Supreme Court found no reason to entertain the appeals and affirmed the High Court's direction to the insurance company to pay the compensation and recover it from the owner of the oil tanker, and reasoned that the driver's lack of the mandatory endorsement to drive a vehicle carrying hazardous goods constituted a breach of the statutory requirements, which could not be considered a mere technicality. This breach was directly linked to the driver's qualification to operate the specific type of vehicle involved in the accident, which was attributed to rash and negligent driving.

Coram: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date of Judgment: 08-04-2025