'Conflicting Judgments By High Courts": Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Allahabad HC Order On Rule 9 Of Motor Vehicles Rules

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice on a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the final order passed by the Allahabad High Court wherein the High Court had failed to appreciate that an identical legal issue involving the interpretation of Rule 9 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 was already pending consideration before the Supreme Court (New India Assurance Co Ltd. V. Lakshmi and Ors).

The plea also alleged that the Allahabad High Court had disregarded diametrically opposite views rendered by various other High Courts wherein it was held that in order to drive an empty tanker, endorsement on the driving license to this effect is not required as the phrase 'carrying' under Rule 9 of the Motor Vehicles Rules (Rules) must be taken into consideration.

A Bench comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V. Ramasubramanian issued notice on the plea returnable in 8 weeks.

The petitioner submitted before the Court that the Allahabad High Court in Krishna Kumar v. United Insurance Company Ltd and the Bombay High Court in Kamal v. Archana Raju have laid down contrary positions of law in this regard. Accordingly, the plea contended

"On account of the conflicting judgements by various High Courts, it is imperative that this Hon'ble Court considers the matter and may lay down an authoritative pronouncement on the issues involved."

In the instant case, a road accident had taken place between the offending vehicle i.e. the empty Heavy Motor Vehicle and a Maruti Omni Van. Consequently, the inhabitants of the Maruti car had passed away after having suffered injuries. The Allahabad High Court vide order dated January 18, 2021 had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. The appeal had been dismissed on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. empty tanker was not in possession of a valid driving license that permitted him to drive hazardous goods.

Averments in the plea:

The petitioner contended that the High Court had not taken into consideration that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was empty and was not carrying any hazardous goods. Further it was submitted that the impugned order had disregarded other judgments wherein it had been categorically held that the proximate cause of the accident was required to be examined.

It was also required to be examined as to whether the breach of condition of driving license was so fundamental to have caused the concerned accident which was not done by the High Court, the plea noted. 

The plea also submitted that the impugned order failed to take into consideration prior judicial decisions wherein it has been held that the burden of proving that the tanker was carrying hazardous goods is on the insurer.

"The impugned judgement erroneously held that in the absence of endorsement there could not be a shifting of burden on the Insurance Company to prove whether at the relevant time of the accident, transport vehicle carried dangerous or hazardous goods or not", the plea further contended.

It was also pointed out to the Court that in the instant case, the petitioner is merely the authorized representative of the owner of the offending vehicle and as such cannot be burdened with personal liability.

Furthermore, it was contended that the duty on the owner of the goods under Rule 132(5) to ensure that the driver is carrying a valid license as per Section 9 of the Rules only arises in the event that the vehicle is actually 'carrying' dangerous and hazardous goods.

"A vehicle in order to be treated as carrying hazardous and dangerous goods was firstly required to 'carry' any hazardous or dangerous goods to human life", the plea reiterated.

The petitioner is represented by Advocate Dhiraj Abraham Philip.

Case Title: Ramesh Chandra Tiwari v. Madan Singh and Ors

Click Here To Read/Download Order