If Truck Wasn't Carrying Hazardous Goods At Time Of Accident, Lack Of Endorsement On Driver's License Not Breach Of Insurance Policy: Bombay High Court

Justice Shivkumar Dige held that since there was nothing to show that the offending truck was carrying hazardous goods, the terms of the insurance policy were not breached just because the driver did not have a license for carrying hazardous goods.

"...it is not necessary that at all the time the truck was filled with gas cylinders. The spot panchanamma which was prepared after three to four months of the accident, does not show that offending truck was carrying gas cylinders at the time of the accident. Without any evidence, the Tribunal has erroneously held that at the time of the accident the offending truck was carrying gas cylinders. The driver of offending truck was holding effective and valid license of driving heavy vehicle but there was no endorsement on it for carrying hazardous goods and, on that basis, liability is fixed on Appellant, which is erroneous", the court held.

The court modified the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s order that exonerated the vehicle’s insurance company and fixed the entire liability on the owner of the offending vehicle on the ground that the driver was carrying hazardous goods without license at the time of the accident.

On March 9, 2004, one Ramdas Deshmukh was riding a motorcycle on Pune-Bangalore highway from Satara to Pune. Near Wadhe village, a bullock cart was coming from Pune side and the truck was coming from Satara. When the truck driver saw the cart, he tried to overtake the motorcycle and dash both the motorcycle and the bullock cart in the process. The motorcycle rider died on the spot.

The Tribunal observed that at the time of the accident, the offending truck did not have permit to carry hazardous goods and the driver’s licence had no endorsement to drive hazardous goods. It recorded a finding that the truck was carrying gas cylinders at the time of the accident. Thus, the policy terms have been breached and insurance company is not liable to pay compensation, the Tribunal held. Therefore, the driver of the offending truck filed the present appeal challenging the entire liability being fixed on him.

The spot panchnama showed that the name ‘Bharat Gas Company’ was written on the offending truck and it was used for transport of gas cylinders.

The court noted that none of the witnesses examined by the family of the deceased or the insurance company stated that there were gas cylinders in the truck at the time of the accident.

The driver had the licence for heavy goods vehicle but it did not endorsement for hazardous goods. Eye witnesses stated that the truck gave a dash to the motorcycle of the deceased.

The court noted that the spot panchnama was prepared after three to four months of the accident. It is not that the truck was filled with gas cylinders all the time, the court said. The sport panchanama does not state that the truck was carrying gas cylinders at the time of the accident, the court observed.

Therefore, the court held that the tribunal erroneously exonerated the insurance company of liability as it did not produce evidence showing that the truck was carrying gas cylinders at the time of the accident. Therefore, there is no breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the coat concluded.

Case no. – First Appeal No.1175 of 2010

Case Title – Vijay Arvind Pore v. Rupali Ramdas Deshmukh and Ors.