Holding

The Supreme Court held that the driver’s failure to obtain the statutory endorsement and training required under s.11 read with Rule 9 is a material breach that makes the insurer liable to pay the award and recover from the owner, and that a belated training certificate is inadmissible under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.

Summary

An oil tanker carrying hazardous goods collided with a bicyclist and a pedestrian, killing both. The driver of the tanker did not have the statutory endorsement on his licence required under Section 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the award to the victims and to recover the amount from the tanker’s owner and driver, a direction affirmed by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the lack of the required endorsement and training constitutes a material breach that contributed to the negligent driving, making the insurer liable, and rejected the late‑produced training certificate as inadmissible under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed and the direction to the insurer to pay and recover was upheld.

Issues considered

The absence of an endorsement on the driver’s licence under s.11 MVA and Rule 9 CMVR constitutes a breach of policy conditions rendering the insurer liable to pay the award.
Whether the lack of such endorsement is a material or main cause of the accident, thereby justifying the insurer’s liability.
Whether a training certificate produced at the appellate stage can be admitted under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
The interpretation of ‘class’ or ‘description’ in s.11 of the Motor Vehicles Act with respect to vehicles carrying hazardous goods.
Whether the insurer can avoid liability on the ground of a technical breach of licence conditions.

Legislation cited

Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989s. Rule 14, s. Rule 9
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 41 Rule 27
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 10, s. 11, s. 14, s. 149, s. 2, s. 3, s. 41

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the insurer to pay the award amount and recover it from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle carrying hazardous goods, in view of the absence of an endorsement in the driving licence of the driver as required Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w r.9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – ss.11, 14, 41 – Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 – r.9 – Motor accident involving an oil tanker killing a bicyclist and a pedestrian – Tribunal

Subjects

Motor accidentOil tankerLack of endorsement on driving licenceVehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goodsPay and recoverInsurance company to pay and recoverRule 9 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989Breach of policy conditionInsurance liabilityTraining certificateOrder 41 Rule 27 CPC‘Class’ or ‘description’ of motor vehiclesEffective licenseDuly licensedRash and negligent drivingStatutory requirementUpskill driving efficiencyTransport vehicle

Judgment

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 435 : 2025 INSC 468

M/s Chatha Service Station
v.
Lalmati Devi & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 5089-5092 of 2025)
08 April 2025
[Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the insurer to pay
the award amount and recover it from the owner and driver of the
offending vehicle carrying hazardous goods, in view of the absence
of an endorsement in the driving licence of the driver as required
under s.11 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w r.9 of the Central
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

Headnotes†
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – ss.11, 14, 41 – Central Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989 – r.9 – Motor accident involving an oil
tanker killing a bicyclist and a pedestrian – Tribunal directed
the insurer to pay the award and recover it from the owner
and driver of the offending vehicle, since the driver did not
have a valid licence to drive a vehicle carrying dangerous
and hazardous goods in view of lack of endorsement on his
licence as required u/s.11 r/w r.9 – High Court affirmed the
order to pay and recover – Correctness:
Held: r.9 deals with the professional skill of driving a specially
designed vehicle carrying dangerous or hazardous goods – The
accident was caused due to “rash and negligent driving of the
vehicle” which the driver was not entitled to drive because of lack
of endorsement on his licence as required u/s.11 r/w r.9 – The
breach of non-compliance of the statutory requirement to undergo
a training course to upskill the driving efficiency and product safety
cannot be brushed aside as a technical breach not contributing to
the accident – Admittedly, the driver did not have a licence having
an endorsement as required under the Act and the Rules to drive a
vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods – The offending
vehicle; the oil tanker, was a vehicle intended to carry goods of

* Author
436 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

dangerous and hazardous nature – Further, the training certificate
was produced at the appellate stage for the first time without any
explanation for its non-production before the Tribunal, raising
genuine suspicion on veracity of certificate and was rightly found
not acceptable as per Or. 41 R. 27, CPC – Appeals dismissed,
direction to the insurance company to pay and recover, affirmed.
[Paras 11, 10, 16-19]

Interpretation of Statutes – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – ss.2, 10,
11 – Additions to driving licence – Words ‘class’ or ‘description’
in s.11, used disjunctively not alternatively:
Held: s.10 enumerates the various classes of vehicles for which
license is granted and goods vehicle, simpliciter and those designed
to carry dangerous and hazardous goods, fall within the class of
‘transport vehicle’ – Further, clause (j) of s.10(2) specifically speaks
of ‘motor vehicle of a specified description’ – s.11 in relation to
additions to driving licence, speaks of an existing driving licence
to which any other class or description of motor vehicles can be
added entitling the holder to thus drive a motor vehicle of more
than one class or description – By the use of the words ‘class’ or
‘description’ independently, it is clear that the statute has used it
disjunctively and not alternatively – This interpretation is in tune
with the statutory scheme, which defines u/s.2 of the definition
clause, vehicles of varying description like goods vehicle, heavy
passenger vehicle medium goods vehicle and so on and so forth.
[Para 13]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – ss.3, 149 – ‘Effective license’ and
‘duly licensed’ – Distinction and various contingencies in
which the insurer are absolved from their liability to indemnify,
as discussed in Swaran Singh’s case, enumerated. [Para 15]

Case Law Cited
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Swaran Singh [2004] 1 SCR 180 :
(2004) 3 SCC 297 – referred to.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K. Ramasamy, 2006 SCC OnLine
Mad 963; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. A. Verlaxmi, 2013
SCC OnLine Chh 272; National Insurance Company v. Harbans
Kaur, FAO Nos. 1210 & 8292 of 2004 decided on 26.03.2018 –
referred to.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 437

M/s Chatha Service Station v. Lalmati Devi & Ors.

List of Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989;
Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

List of Keywords
Motor accident; Oil tanker; Lack of endorsement on driving licence;
Vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods; Pay and recover;
Insurance company to pay and recover; Rule 9 of Central Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989; Breach of policy condition; Insurance liability;
Training certificate; Order 41 Rule 27 CPC; ‘Class’ or ‘description’
of motor vehicles; Effective license; Duly licensed; Rash and
negligent driving; Statutory requirement; Upskill driving efficiency;
Transport vehicle.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 5089-5092
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2019 and 14.05.2019
of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO
No. 3250 and 3252 of 2015 and RACR No. 21 and 22 of 2019
respectively

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Pai Amit, Tushar Bakshi.
Advs. for the Respondents:
T. Mahipal, Rohit Kumar Sinha.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

1. Leave granted.
2. The above four appeals are filed from the orders in two first appeals
by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, arising from two separate
orders of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the orders in two
438 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Review Applications filed from the aforesaid orders in first appeals,
both of which stood rejected.
3. Before us, the appeals are filed by the owner of the offending
vehicle involved in the motor accident, in which the breadwinners
of the claimants’ family, who were respectively; riding a bicycle and
a pedestrian, died in the accident involving an oil tanker. The First
Information Report was registered against the driver of the oil tanker
which was rashly and negligently driven, by reason of which it hit the
bicyclist and the pedestrian. The Tribunal found negligence based
on the FIR registered and the deposition of CW2, who was an eye-
witness. Ext. C1-FIR and Ext.C3-Charge Sheet points to the rash and
negligent driving of the oil tanker, which stands corroborated by the
deposition of CW2: eye-witness. The awards were passed in both
the claim petitions, the quantum of which has not been challenged by
the owner of the offending vehicle; the oil tanker, either in the High
Court or this Court. Having fixed the quantum, the Tribunal directed
the insurance company to pay the award amounts and recover it
from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, since the driver
did not have a valid licence to drive a vehicle carrying dangerous
and hazardous goods. Appeals were filed before the High Court by
the owner of the oil tanker, against the order to pay and recover. The
review applications were also filed against the very same direction
by the owner of the oil tanker; the offending vehicle, both of which
stood rejected.
4. Before us, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant only
argued on the direction to pay and recover as issued to the insurance
company. It was argued based on decisions of different High Courts
that as long as there is no case that the accident occurred due to
the dangerous and hazardous goods carried in the vehicle, the
absence of an endorsement as required under Rule 9 of Central
Motor Vehicles Rules, 19891, would not result in a finding of breach
of the policy conditions. The vehicle at the time of accident was not
carrying any dangerous or hazardous goods, is also the submission.
Moreover, the learned Counsel for the appellant, also pointed out that
there was a certificate produced in the first appeal which indicated
that the driver had undergone the three days training course, which

1 “the Rules
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 439

M/s Chatha Service Station v. Lalmati Devi & Ors.

equipped him to drive the offending vehicle even when it was loaded
and the absence of an endorsement is a venial breach.
5. The learned Counsel for the insurance company pointed out that
under Rule 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19882, the driver of a
goods vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods is required
to undergo a training as prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules and
is further required to get an endorsement of such training having
been undergone, in the transport vehicle license possessed by him.
The driver who was examined before the Tribunal clearly accepted
that there was no such endorsement made in his driving licence.
The driver also stated that at the time of the accident, there was
oil carried in the tanker. The respondent-insurer submits that the
High Court has rightly declined reliance on the training certificate
produced in the first appeal, finding it to be not acceptable as per
Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 19083 and further,
emphasised the absence of an endorsement made in the driving
licence.
6. We have looked at Section 14 of the Act, the proviso to which; as it
stood at the time of the accident, restricted the validity of a license to
drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous and hazardous
nature to one year and required a one day refresher course in the
prescribed syllabus, for its renewal. Pertinent is Section 11, with
the nominal heading ‘Additions to driving license’, sub-section (1)
of which requires any addition to an existing license to drive any
class or description of motor vehicle to be procured by making an
application for the same to any licensing authority in the State and
sub-section (2) makes the consideration of the application so filed,
subject to the rules prescribed by the Central Government and the
provisions of Section 9; which provision speaks generally about
‘Grant of driving license’.
7. We will first notice the decisions of the High Courts relied on
by the appellant before us. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
K. Ramasamy, 4 the High Court of Judicature at Madras was
concerned with a similar case where breach was alleged by the

2 “the Act”
3 “the C.P.C.”
4 2006 SCC OnLine Mad 963
440 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

insurer for reason of absence of endorsement as prescribed under
Rule 9 of the Rules, in the heavy goods vehicle licence obtained
by the driver of the offending vehicle. It was held by the learned
Single Judge that it was for the insurer to establish breach and
even when it is so established the insurer would not be allowed
to avoid its liability unless the said breach is so fundamental to
have contributed to the cause of the accident; which the absence
of endorsement does not qualify as fundamental. The reasoning
was also that the purpose of the training was to equip the driver to
meet exigencies of spillage of the dangerous or hazardous goods
transported in the vehicle. It was held on the facts of that case, the
accident occurred only by reason of the rash and negligent driving
of the vehicle and the absence of training cannot be attributed as
a cause of the accident.
8. Reliance was also placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Swaran
Singh 5 to hold that “the main purpose of the qualification and training
prescribed in Rule 9 of the Rules seems to equip the driver of the
tanker lorries transporting hazardous substances to meet certain
emergencies and to make him aware of certain basic emergency
procedures, in case if any spillage of hazardous substances
transported in the vehicle is caused due to an accident.” (sic). We
are afraid, the High Court erroneously made the above observations,
despite extracting Rule 9; as we will shortly demonstrate, and failed
to appreciate that there was no extraneous cause attributable to
the accident, as spoken of in Swaran Singh,5 but for the defective
driving of the goods vehicle carrying hazardous goods, the driving
of which itself would require special training.
9. Likewise in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. A. Verlaxmi,6 the
Chhattisgarh High Court considering the absence of an endorsement
under Rule 9 held that the endorsement neither increases the
efficiency of the driver nor by its absence reduces such efficiency
in any manner. It was categorically held that “for driving such a
vehicle, no further expertise or driving skill is required,” (sic) which
interpretation unfortunately does not flow from a plain reading of
Rule 9 and the syllabus prescribed therein.

5 (2004) 3 SCC 297
6 2013 SCC OnLine Chh 272
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 441

M/s Chatha Service Station v. Lalmati Devi & Ors.

10. The Punjab and Haryana High Court also in National Insurance
Company v. Harbans Kaur,7 held that “perusal of Rule 9 of the Rules
would make it evident that before a driver can file an application for
obtaining necessary endorsement as required under sub-rule (3) of
Rule 9 of the Rules, he is to undergo some training for a period of two
to three days but the same does not deal with the professional skill
of driving. With regard to professional skill of driving, it has already
been clarified by the licensing authority at the time of granting licence
to the driver authorizing him to drive a transport vehicle” (sic). Rule
9 as we will presently see demonstrates otherwise and deals with
the professional skill of driving a specially designed vehicle carrying
dangerous or hazardous goods.
11. Rule 9 requires that “any person driving a goods carriage carrying
goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life shall, in
addition to being the holder of a driving licence to drive a transport
vehicle, also has the ability to read and write at least one Indian
language specified in the VIIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India
and English and also possess a certificate of having successfully
passed a course consisting of the syllabus detailed thereunder”.
The syllabus stipulated cannot be found to be that which is confined
to proper care being taken of the dangerous or hazardous goods
carried in the vehicle; which is only one part of the three-part syllabus
tabulated in the Rules as parts ‘A’, ‘B’ & ‘C’. Parts ‘A’ & ‘B’ specifically
emphasise the driving skill and efficiency that is required while carrying
dangerous or hazardous goods; the Product Safety, including Product
Information and Emergency Procedures having been delineated in
Part ‘C’. The syllabus in Part ‘A’ includes defensive driving and Part
‘B’ is with respect to advanced driving skills and training. Under
‘Product Safety’ comes the emergency procedures to deal with
spillage handling, firefighting, toxic release control, first aid, use of
protective equipment etc. The statute having provided for a course
of three days and the rules having prescribed the syllabus; which
prescription is not confined to the product safety or safe handling
of goods, while in transportation or when put in danger, we cannot
find the absence of such endorsement of the training course having
been undertaken to be a venial breach, not absolving the Insurance
Company of its liability.

7 FAO Nos. 1210 & 8292 of 2004 decided on 26.03.2018
442 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

12. We have to also emphasise that in the present case, the tanker was
carrying oil; for which it is intended, while the accident occurred.
We hasten to add that we may not be misunderstood as agreeing
to the corollary to the argument that a licence holder without the
endorsement under Rule 9, could drive an empty goods vehicle
intended to carry hazardous goods, designed specifically for that
purpose. The breach of non-compliance of the statutory requirement
to undergo a training course to upskill the driving efficiency and
product safety cannot be brushed aside as a technical breach not
contributing to the accident.
13. We are conscious of the fact that Section 10 enumerates the various
classes of vehicles for which license is granted and goods vehicle,
simpliciter and those designed to carry dangerous and hazardous
goods, fall within the class of ‘transport vehicle’. Clause (j) of Section
10(2) specifically speaks of ‘motor vehicle of a specified description’.
Section 11; in relation to additions to driving licence, speaks of an
existing driving licence to which any other class or description of
motor vehicles can be added entitling the holder to thus drive a motor
vehicle of more than one class or description. By the use of the
words ‘class’ or ‘description’ independently, it is clear that the statute
has used it disjunctively and not alternatively. This interpretation is
in tune with the statutory scheme, which defines under Section 2
of the definition clause, vehicles of varying description like goods
vehicle, heavy passenger vehicle medium goods vehicle and so on
and so forth.
14. Further, Section 41 dealing with how registrations are to be carried
out, by sub-section (4) empowers the Central Government to specify
the type of motor vehicles, having regard to the design, construction
and use of motor vehicles and bring out notifications in the Official
Gazette, specifying the type of a motor vehicle to be included in
the registration certificate along with other particulars required. The
Central Government has brought out notifications under the above
provision, presently vide S.O.1248 (E) dated 05.11.2004, which
specifies good carriers, trucks, tankers or mail carriers as a different
type of vehicle. It is with the above description in mind that we have
to look at Rule 9 of the Rules.
15. Swaran Singh5 distinguished an ‘effective licence’ as used in Section
3 of the Act and the words ‘duly licenced’ used in Section 149 of
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 443

M/s Chatha Service Station v. Lalmati Devi & Ors.

the Act; as it existed before the amendment of 2019. The said
decision considered the various contingencies in which the insurer
could absolve themselves from their liability to indemnify. These
contingencies were in relation to the driver of the offending vehicle, (i)
having a licence of one type, at the time of accident driving another
type of vehicle (ii) procuring a fake licence; (iii) possessing a learner’s
licence and (iv) admittedly having not obtained a license. We are
concerned in the present case, with a situation where the driver
of the offending goods vehicle having licence to drive a transport
vehicle, under which class a goods vehicle falls; which however
does not enable him to drive a goods vehicle carrying dangerous &
hazardous goods. To enable this a transport vehicle licence holder;
which vehicle includes the description of a goods carriage vehicle,
will have to submit an application and obtain an endorsement under
Section 11 read with Rule 9 of the Act and Rules. As has been held
in Swaran Singh5 it is incumbent on the Court/Tribunal considering
a case of a licensee driving another type of vehicle, for which he
has not obtained a licence, to take a decision as to whether this fact
was the main or contributory cause of negligence. This factum of
absence of licence to drive another type of vehicle is inconsequential
if that is not the main or contributory cause of accident. It was so
held in Swaran Singh 5:
“… In each case, on evidence led before the Tribunal,
a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the
driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but
found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or
contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that
the accident was caused solely because of some other
unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures
and similar other causes having no nexus with the driver
not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not
be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach
of conditions concerning driving licence.” [sic. Para 89]
16. In the present case there was a contention taken by the driver of the
vehicle who was examined before the Tribunal that he swerved the
vehicle to save pedestrians and this caused the accident. However,
the deposition of CW2, the eye-witness goes contrary to the said
self-serving statement of the driver, coupled with the fact that the
charge sheet also was against the driver, for the offence of causing
444 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

death by reason of rash and negligent driving. The eye-witness clearly
deposed that the accident was caused by the reason of “rash and
negligent driving of the vehicle” which the driver was not entitled to
drive for reason of lack of endorsement on his licence as required
under Section 11 read with Rule 9 of the Act and Rules.
17. Admittedly, the driver did not have a licence as required under the Act
and the Rules to drive a vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous
goods. There is also no dispute that the offending vehicle; the oil
tanker, was a vehicle intended to carry goods of dangerous and
hazardous nature. The contention taken by the owner of the offending
vehicle that there was no goods carried at the time of the accident,
was negated by both the Tribunal and the High Court finding from
the testimony of the driver that it was carrying oil at the relevant time.
18. We also perfectly agree with the findings of the High Court that
the production of the certificate at the stage of the appeal is not
worthy of acceptance looking at the contours of Order 41 Rule 27
of the C.P.C. Admittedly, the certificate was not produced before
the Tribunal and hence, there is no question arising of the Court
from which the appeal arises having refused to accept the evidence
proffered. There was also no explanation for non-production of the
certificate before the Tribunal; which was produced at the appellate
stage for the first time. Only if there is a satisfactory explanation for
the non-production before the original court, i.e. despite exercise of
due diligence or the same was not within the knowledge of the party
or it could not be produced despite exercise of due diligence, could
there be an acceptance of the document at the appellate stage. In
the present case, not only was there any explanation offered by
the owner of the vehicle, but also the driver was present before the
Tribunal and examined; when such a contention was not taken by
him. The transport vehicle driving licence produced by the driver,
admittedly did not have an endorsement. The driver also did not
have a claim that he had undergone a training as prescribed under
the Rules; despite being cross-examined on the point of absence
of a valid license.
19. This raises genuine suspicion on the veracity of the certificate
produced at the appellate stage. We have looked at the certificate
as pointed out by the learned Counsel, a copy of which is available
in the record. The document certifies the driver to have successfully
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 445

M/s Chatha Service Station v. Lalmati Devi & Ors.

completed a three-day training course between 13.01.2012 to
16.01.2012 in line with Rule 9 of the Rules. It is also seen from the
certificate that the institution is approved by the Punjab Government.
However, we have to notice that there is no serial number of issuance
in the said document nor is there a round seal of the institution which
issued the certificate affixed. The licence of the driver also did not
have an endorsement as required under the Act. We find absolutely
no reason to entertain the appeals and dismiss the same affirming
the direction to the insurance company to pay the amounts to the
claimants and recover it from the owner of the oil-tanker.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey