Summary
The Supreme Court upheld a 'pay and recover' direction against the owner of an oil tanker whose driver held a transport vehicle licence but lacked the endorsement under Section 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules for driving a goods carriage carrying dangerous or hazardous goods. The absence of the Rule 9 training endorsement is not a venial or technical breach, because the prescribed syllabus covers defensive and advanced driving skills and not merely product safety, and a training certificate produced for the first time in appeal was rightly refused under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
Issues
- Whether the absence of an endorsement under Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 in the licence of the driver of a goods carriage carrying dangerous or hazardous goods is a mere technical breach that does not absolve the insurer of liability.
- Whether a driver holding a licence to drive a transport vehicle is entitled, without an addition under Section 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 9, to drive a goods carriage carrying dangerous or hazardous goods.
- Whether a training certificate produced for the first time before the High Court in first appeal could be received as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- Whether the direction to the insurer to pay the award and recover it from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle was justified.
Provisions considered
- Rule 9, Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989Rule 9 requires a person driving a goods carriage carrying dangerous or hazardous goods, in addition to holding a transport vehicle licence, to possess a certificate of having passed the prescribed course. The Court read the three-part syllabus (Parts A and B on defensive and advanced driving skills, Part C on product safety and emergency procedures) as going to driving skill itself, so the absence of the endorsement cannot be treated as a venial breach. (¶¶ 4, 5, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17)
- Section 11, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Section 11 requires any addition of another class or description of motor vehicle to an existing licence to be obtained by application to the licensing authority; the Court read 'class' and 'description' disjunctively, so a transport vehicle licence holder must obtain an endorsement under Section 11 read with Rule 9 before driving a goods carriage carrying dangerous or hazardous goods. (¶¶ 6, 13, 15, 16)
- Section 14, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988The proviso, as it stood at the time of the accident, limited a licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying dangerous or hazardous goods to one year and required a one-day refresher course for renewal, indicating that such driving requires special training. (¶¶ 5, 6)
- Section 10, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Section 10 enumerates the classes of vehicles for which licences are granted; goods vehicles, including those designed to carry dangerous or hazardous goods, fall within 'transport vehicle', and Section 10(2)(j) refers to a motor vehicle of a specified description. (¶ 13)
- Section 41(4), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Section 41(4) empowers the Central Government to specify types of motor vehicles by notification for registration purposes; the notification S.O. 1248(E) dated 05.11.2004 specifies goods carriers, trucks, tankers and mail carriers as a distinct type, and Rule 9 is to be read with that description in mind. (¶ 14)
- Sections 3 and 149, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Following Swaran Singh on the distinction between an 'effective licence' under Section 3 and 'duly licensed' under Section 149 (pre-2019 amendment), the Court held that where a driver licensed for one type of vehicle drives another, the Tribunal must decide whether that fact was the main or contributory cause of the accident; here the only cause was the rash and negligent driving of the hazardous goods vehicle. (¶¶ 8, 15, 16)
- Order 41 Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Additional evidence may be received in appeal only if the trial court wrongly refused it or the party shows it could not be produced earlier despite due diligence; the training certificate was never produced before the Tribunal, no explanation was offered, and the driver, though examined, never claimed to have undergone training, so the High Court rightly declined to accept it. (¶¶ 5, 18, 19)
Held
- Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 prescribes a three-day course whose syllabus is not confined to product safety or safe handling of goods but includes defensive and advanced driving skills; the absence of an endorsement that such training was undertaken is therefore not a venial breach that leaves the insurer liable, and the Madras, Chhattisgarh and Punjab and Haryana High Court decisions treating the endorsement as unrelated to driving skill were wrongly decided. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
- Non-compliance with the statutory requirement to undergo the training course intended to upskill driving efficiency and product safety cannot be brushed aside as a technical breach not contributing to the accident; the Court also declined to accept that a licence holder without the Rule 9 endorsement could drive even an empty goods vehicle designed to carry hazardous goods. (¶ 12)
- Section 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act uses 'class' and 'description' disjunctively, so a holder of a transport vehicle licence, which covers a goods carriage, is not thereby enabled to drive a goods carriage carrying dangerous or hazardous goods and must apply for and obtain an endorsement under Section 11 read with Rule 9. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
- Applying Swaran Singh, where the driver holds a licence for one type of vehicle but drives another, the Tribunal must decide whether that fact was the main or contributory cause of the accident; the driver's claim that he swerved to save pedestrians was contradicted by the eyewitness and the chargesheet, and the accident was caused solely by the rash and negligent driving of a vehicle he was not entitled to drive. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
- A document not produced before the Tribunal, with no explanation for its non-production, cannot be received as additional evidence in appeal under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC; the certificate, which bore no serial number or seal and was not mentioned by the driver when cross-examined on his licence, raised genuine suspicion as to its veracity. (¶¶ 18, 19)
Result
Appeals dismissed; the direction to the insurance company to pay the award amounts to the claimants and recover them from the owner of the oil tanker affirmed; pending applications disposed of.