IN THE COURT OF SH. [ENTITY] PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNALII, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI MACT No. 271/12/10 IN THE MATTER OF : Sh. [ENTITY], S/o late Sh. Mangal Singh, R/o 1289, Mona Meet Wali Gali, Kapashera Border, New Delhi. Also at: H.No. 52/89, Village Barwara, Post Ladhwara, District Chitrakoot, U.P. Claimant Versus 1. [ENTITY] (Driver) S/o Mr. Abas Ali, R/o H.No. B54, Old Jasola Village, New Delhi. 2. [ENTITY] (Owner) R/o H.No. B54, Old Jasola Village, New Delhi110025. 3. ICICI Lombard General Ins. Co. Ltd. (Insurer) Zenith House, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. Respondents
FILED ON : 07.08.2010 RESERVED ON : 25.09.2013 DECIDED ON : 30.09.2013 : J U D G M E N T :
1. This is a claim petition filed under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] for grant of compensation.
2. Respondent no. 1 is the driver, Respondent No. 2 is the owner and Respondent no. 3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.
3. Claimant has stated in his claim petition that on 04.06.10, at about 2.00 p.m., he was at IGI Airport No. 3 when the offending vehicle bearing no. DL1LK5299 came at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and hit him and also hit one of his friends. As a result of this accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was taken to Ayushman Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, claimant was referred to Holy Family Hospital for better treatment.
4. Claimant has stated that police has registered FIR No. 312/10 at P.S. IGI Airport under [SECTION] of [ACT] against Respondent No. 1.
5. Claimant has stated that at the time of accident, he was 23 years of age and was employed with L & T Ltd. at a salary of Rs. 6,000/ per month.
6. Therefore, claimant has prayed that he be awarded a compensation of Rs. 15 lacs with pendentelite interest.
7. Respondent No. 1 and 2 were proceeded exparte and only insurance company filed its written statement. Insurance company has stated in para 3 of its written statement as under: "That the answering respondent denies all liabilities in this case as the Insurer, if it is found that insured vehicle No. DL1LK5299 was being driven by a person without permission or authority of the insured and the said vehicle was used contrary to the terms of the Insurance Policy, permit and was being driven by its driver without holding a proper and valid driving license."
8. Rest of the averments of the claim petition were also denied but the factum of the insurance of the offending vehicle on the date of accident was admitted.
9. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed to decide the compensation payable to the claimant:
1) Whether [ENTITY], petitioner had sustained injuries on his person in an accident which took place on 04.06.2010 due to negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. DL1LK5299 being driven in a negligent manner by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3? OPP
2) In case, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioner, to what amount of compensation he is entitled to and from whom? OPP
3) Relief.
10. Claimant entered in the witness box as PW1 and stated similar facts in his evidence by way of affidavit as were already stated by him in his claim petition. He proved his Voter Card as Ex. WP1/1, Identity Card given by [ENTITY] & [ENTITY] as Ex. PW1/2, discharge summary of Holy Family Hospital as Ex. PW1/3. As per this discharge summary, claimant was admitted in that hospital on 27.06.10 and discharged on 30.06.10. Claimant also proved earlier discharge summary of the same hospital where he was admitted on 04.06.10 and discharged on 16.06.10 as Ex. PW1/4 and some more treatment record was exhibited as Ex. PW1/5. Final Bill dated 30.06.10 for a sum of Rs. 19,729/ was proved as Ex. PW1/6 and details of final bill were given Ex. PW1/7, 8 and 9 respectively, Refund Voucher of Holy Family Hospital was proved as Ex. PW1/10 and receipts for payments given in that hospital were proved as Ex. PW1/10, receipts for purchase of medicines etc. were proved as Ex. PW1/1417, disability certificate given by Chief Medical Officer, Chitrakoot was proved as Ex. PW1/18 and treatment record of Holy Family Hospital was proved as Ex. PW1/19 and 20.
11. In cross examination by counsel for insurance company, the claimant stated that he was conscious after the accident. He stated that he had not told to the doctor that he had suffered injuries due to fall of pipes on his legs and stated that he had told the doctor that he had suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident. He denied a suggestion that he had suffered no injury in a road traffic accident. He stated that he was not covered under [ACT] and he has not received entire reimbursement from his employer i.e. L & T.
12. Claimant examined Dr. [ENTITY] from District Hospital, Chitrakoot as PW2 who proved Disability Certificate given to the claimant which was already exhibited as Ex. PW1/8. PW2 stated that this certificate was given to the claimant in a Social Welfare Camp which was organised on every Tuesday and Thursday every week. He stated that it is mentioned in the certificate itself that the certificate is not valid for a Court Case because this is given without documents pertaining to investigation and is given only to help individuals avail bus passes and get Government jobs as well as for pension being given to handicap persons. He stated that a certificate which can be used for compensation for claim petition is given on the basis of XRay, MRI etc. which was not done in the present case and present certificate was given only on the basis of clinical examination. A large number of members of public gather in the camps every day and minute examination is not possible in each case. However, when shown Ex. PW1/3 which is Discharge Summary of Holy Family Hospital, the Doctor stated that the injuries suffered by the claimant may have been caused by a road traffic accident.
13. On behalf of insurance company its Manager (Legal) had entered in the witness box as R3W1 and stated in his evidence by way of affidavit that their counsel had sent a notice under [SECTION] of [ACT] asking the owner and driver to produce the original insurance policy of the insured vehicle and valid and effective driving license alongwith certificate of training taken by him to drive the alleged offending vehicle in NCT of Delhi valid on the date of accident i.e. 04.06.10. He stated that the owner and driver have failed to produce the same. Office copy of the notice was exhibited as Ex. R3W1/1, the postal receipts as per which these notices were sent were proved as Ex. R3W1/2 and 3 and attested copy of policy was proved as Ex. R3W1/4. He deposed that as the driver was driving the offending vehicle on the basis of a driving license issued by Licensing Authority of Ghaziabad, U.P. with a stamp that the license is not valid in NCT without training and the "vehicle carried dangerous and hazardous goods", therefore, Respondent No. 1 was not having a valid driving license on the date of accident. So the insurance company prayed to be exonerated from any liability. He relied on driving license placed on record by the Investigating Officer alongwith D.A. Report in support of his submissions for exoneration of the Insurance Company.
14. No other witness was examined by any other respondents.
15. At the stage of final arguments, it was noticed that it will be better if the claimant is examined by a Medical Board of a Government Hospital in Delhi to assess physical disability suffered by him.
16. Therefore, the claimant was directed to appear before the Medical Board of DDU Hospital for assessing disability suffered by him.
17. As per disability certificate received by this Tribunal directly from the Hospital, the claimant has suffered 20% permanent physical disability in relation to right lower limb as a case of post traumatic stiffness of right knee and right ankle.
18. Since this certificate was received by the Tribunal directly from the Hospital and as the Medical Board was convened on the directions of this Tribunal, this certificate shall also be taken into consideration for deciding the compensation payable to the claimant.
19. On the basis of pleadings of parties, evidence on record and arguments addressed, issuewise findings are as under:
20. Burden of proving this issue is on the claimant.
21. For succeeding in a claim petition filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT], it is for the claimant to prove that the vehicle which caused the accident was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver.
22. This is sine qua non for getting the relief.
23. Claimant has stated in his claim petition that on 04.06.10, at around 2.00 p.m., he was near IGI Airport Terminal3, Fire Area when the offending vehicle bearing no.
DL1LK5299 being driven in a rash and negligent manner hit him resulting in grievous injuries to him.
24. The best person to deny these allegations of rash and negligent driving was Respondent No. 1 but he did not file any written statement.
25. Therefore, the allegations of rash and negligent driving made against Respondent No. 1 by the claimant have remained unchallenged and unrebutted.
26. So much so, when the claimant entered in the witness box, even then neither he was cross examined visa vis these allegations made against Respondent No. 1 nor Respondent No. 1 entered in the witness box to prove his innocence.
27. Perusal of the charge sheet which is enclosed by the Investigating Officer alongwith Accident Information Report reveals that the claimant had stated before the Investigating Officer that the offending vehicle was being reversed in a rash and negligent manner and had hit the claimant and since the vehicle was being reversed, its rear tyre crossed his leg.
28. He has clarified that the driver and his labour had removed him to the hospital and there on the pressure of tempo driver, he had told the doctor initially that the injury was suffered due to falling of a pipe on his leg.
29. However, he also stated that thereafter he had again disclosed correct facts to the treating doctors that the injury was not due to falling of any pipe but due to the accident in question.
30. This explains why in the MLC it is mentioned that the accident had taken place due to falling of pipes and simultaneously it is also written that the offending truck had caused a road traffic accident resulting in injuries.
31. None of the respondents has examined the doctor who had prepared the MLC.
32. The explanation given by the claimant appears to be justified.
33. In [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Gawhati High Court has observed as under: "In deciding a matter tribunal should bear in mind the caution struck by the Apex Court that a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is neither a criminal case nor a civil case. In a criminal case in order to have conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case the matter is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, but in a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal the standard of proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in a civil case. No doubt before the tribunal there must be some material on the basis of which the tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to be decided for awarding compensation. But the tribunal is not expected to take or to adopt the nicety of a civil or of a criminal case. After all, it is a summary inquiry and this is a legislation for the welfare of the society"
34. In the case of [PRECEDENT] dated 05.07.12, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under: "8. In [ENTITY] and Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors., (2009) 13 SC 530, the Supreme Court held that in a petition under [SECTION] of the Act, the Claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition under the [ACT]. Para 15 of the report is extracted hereunder: "15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
9. The report in [ENTITY] (Supra) was relied on by the Supreme Court in its latest judgments in [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT]."
35. In the case of [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that: "The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondentsclaimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in [PRECEDENT] (Supra). On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced: (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in [CASE NUMBER], pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle; (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of chargesheet under [SECTION], [ACT] against the driver; (iii) certified copy of F.I.R., wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under the [ACT] are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver."
36. This case was noticed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as [PRECEDENT] where adverse inference was drawn because the driver of the offending vehicle had not appeared in the witness box to corroborate his defence taken in the written statement. It was noted that there is nothing on record to show that the claimant had any enmity with the driver of offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in the case.
37. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of claimant and against the respondents. ISSUE NO. 2:
38. In the case of [PRECEDENT], following principles were laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for determining compensation payable to road traffic accident victims:
(i) The compensation payable to the claimant who is a victim of road accident should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equatable manner.
(ii) Compensation payable in injury cases is payable under two heads. They are
pecuniary damages (special damages) and non pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages have three sub heads which are : (i) expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) (a) Loss of earning ( and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising of loss of earning during the period of treatment and (b) loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability (iii) Future medical expenses. Nonpecuniary damages (General Damage) are (iv) damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries (v) loss of amenities (and /or loss of prospects of marriage) and (vi) loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
(iii) In routine personal injury cases compensation is awarded only under heads (i),
(ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation is granted under any of the heads
(ii) (b), (iii) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospectus of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
39. Claimant had remained admitted in Holy Family Hospital on two occasions. First he had remained admitted from 04.06.10 to 14.06.10 as a case of fracture shaft right tibia, right femur and right medial femoral condyle. He had undergone Open Reduction with Internal Fixation with screw right femoral condyle and IMILN right tibia on 07.06.10 and Closed Reduction Internal Fixation with IMILN right femur on 11.06.10.
40. The claimant was again admitted in the same hospital on 27.06.10 and discharged on 30.06.10 as a case of raw area (R) thigh, knee, shin and debridement and SSG (R) thigh, knee and shin was done.
41. The nature of injuries were such that the claimant has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 20% in relation to right lower limb being a case of post traumatic stiffness of right knee and right ankle.
42. Therefore, for Pain and Suffering claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,000/.
43. So far as cost of treatment is concerned, the claimant has stated that some payments were given by L & T, his employer, but the remaining payments were given by him on his own.
44. Claimant has placed on record receipts for cost of treatment worth Rs. 3,059/. Although there is a bill of Holy Family Hospital for Rs. 19,799/ but in absence of any receipt filed on record by the claimant, it appears that the payment may have been given to the Hospital by employer of the claimant.
45. Therefore, for Cost of Treatment claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,100/.
46. With the kind of injuries suffered by the claimant, it can be safely assumed that the claimant would have remained without work for at least three months. In absence of proof of income of the claimant and in absence of his educational qualifications, reliance is placed on minimum wages payable to an unskilled workman at the time of accident which were Rs. 5,278/ per month.
47. Therefore, for Loss of Wages for three months, claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs. 15,834/.
48. It is well settled that a victim of road traffic accident has to be compensated in terms of money even if gratuitous services are rendered by his family members.
49. In Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Lalita:
AIR 1981 Delhi 558, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that there cannot be any deduction if domestic help is obtained from a family member. The Hon'ble High Court had observed as under: " A wrong doer cannot take advantage of this 'domestic element'. If the mother renders service to her, instead of a nurse, it is right and just that she should recover compensation for the value of the services that the mother has rendered to her. Mother's services were necessitated by the wrong doing and the injured should be compensated for it. ([PRECEDENT]) The services of a wife and mother are worth more than those of a housekeeper because she is in constant attendance and does many more things than a housekeeper. ([PRECEDENT])."
50. This judgment was again quoted with approval by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of [PRECEDENT] dated 04.07.12.
51. Minimum wages payable to an unskilled workman on the date of accident were Rs. 5,278/. Claimant would have needed help of an attendant at least for three months.
52. Therefore, for Attendant's Charges, claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs. 15,834/ (Rs. 5,278/ x 3).
53. Claimant is also awarded a compensation of Rs. 7,500/ for Special Diet and Rs. 7,500/ for Conveyance Charges.
54. Claimant has suffered 20% disability in relation to right lower limb. Claimant is a labourer. He will find it extremely difficult to work as a labourer and earn his livelihood.
55. Claimant has stated that he was 23 years of age at the time of accident. But perusal of his Voter Card shows that his age was 23 years of age as on 01.01.07. Meaning thereby, he was more than 27 years of age at the time of accident.
56. In the case of [PRECEDENT] dated 17.09.13, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under: "2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants has submitted that at the time of the accident, the deceased was 29 years of age and in view of the recent judgment of the Full Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of [ENTITY] and Ors. Vs. [PRECEDENT], the appellants/claimants are entitled for 50% towards future prospects.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/Insurance Company while relying upon the case of [PRECEDENT], and [PRECEDENT]. delivered in [CASE NUMBER] on 02.04.2013 has submitted that in view of the above judgments since the deceased was not in permanent job, therefore, the appellants/claimants are not entitled for any compensation on account of future prospects.
4. The admitted fact is that every salary/income gets increase due to the inflation. Every person after sometime earns more than what he was earning earlier, therefore, in my considered opinion, in every case whether a person is in a Government job or in a private job, his income keeps on escalating. It is immaterial whether he/she is in permanent job or temporary. Earlier majority of the employment was in public sector but in the changed scenario, majority of the people finds employment in private sector. Nowadays, people are very frequently changing their employment. That does not mean they do not have permanent employment.
5. Therefore, for granting future prospects, if it is taken into consideration that person working in the private organizations are not entitled for the same, being not in permanent job, then claimants in such cases are not entitled for the increase towards his salary/income. Hence, recently keeping all these facts into view, the Full Bench of the Supreme Court has decided the case of [ENTITY] (supra) as under: "11. Since, the Court in [ENTITY]'s case (supra) actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in [ENTITY]'s case (supra) and to make it applicable also to the selfemployed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of selfemployed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years."
6. The deceased was aged about 27 years at the time of accident. Therefore, keeping in view the dictum of above noted case, the appellants/claimants are entitled for 50% towards future prospects."
57. Therefore, while assessing loss of income due to disability, future prospects are also to be taken into consideration.
58. Since claimant was less then 40 years of age and once 50% is added to Rs. 5,278/, his assumed income would be Rs. 7,917/ per month and as his age was 27 years, multiplier of 17 will apply.
59. Since the disability is only in relation to right lower limb and is not disability qua entire body, the disability qua entire body can be assessed as 10% meaning thereby loss of wages for the claimant will be Rs. 791/ per month or Rs. 9,500/ p.a. and applying a multiplier of 17, the total loss for the claimant due to this disability will be Rs. 1,61,506/ p.a.
60. Therefore, total compensation payable to the claimant will be Rs. 2,71,274/ which will be paid with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of this claim petition which is 07.08.10 till its deposit in the Tribunal.
61. The next question is which of the respondents is liable to pay this compensation to the claimant?
62. In Accident Information Report, the Investigating Officer has filed a copy of license where there is an endorsement that this is not valid for driving without NCT Training and the vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods.
63. The counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that since there is no endorsement for driving the vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods, the license was not valid. Therefore, counsel for the Insurance Company has prayed for exoneration of the Insurance Company from liability to pay the compensation to the claimant.
64. In the case of [PRECEDENT], following three reasons were given for refusing recovery rights to the insurance company when the driver was driving a Heavy Goods Vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods without endorsement on his license for hazardous goods: "(i) In [ENTITY]'s case, [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that 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 driver not possessing requisite type of license, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving license. In the same decision, it has been further observed that minor breaches of license conditions, such as want of medical fitness certificate, requirement about age of the driver and the like not found to have been the direct cause of the accident, would be treated as minor breaches or inconsequential deviation in the matter of use of vehicles and such minor and inconsequential deviations with regard to licensing conditions would not constitute sufficient ground of denying the benefit of coverage of insurance to the third parties.
(ii) If the facts of the case in hand are considered in the light of the above said observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it has to be pointed out that it has not been established by acceptable evidence that the want of above said endorsement was the main or contributory cause for the accident. The absence of the said endorsement in the driving license, Exh. R2, is only a minor and inconsequential deviation with regard to licensing conditions and, therefore, it would not constitute sufficient ground to deny the benefit of coverage of insurance to the third parties. Further, it has to be pointed out that to avoid its liability to the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. The insurer must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle and the burden of proof wherefor would be on the insurer. Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid license by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant time, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches of the conditions of driving license is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident.
(iii) In this case the insurer appellant herein has not established breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle. In the considered view of this court the absence of the said endorsement in license, Exh. R2, is not so fundamental. Further it has neither been pleaded nor established by acceptable evidence that failure on the part of the holder of license, Exh. R2 to undergo the training prescribed under [SECTION] of the Rules is in any way contributed to the cause of the accident. The main purpose of the qualification and training prescribed in [SECTION] 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. In this case the evidence discloses that the tanker lorry was driven rashly and negligently by its driver and hit against the deceased who was attending to the tyre of the lorry in which he was working as a cleaner near the lorry which was parked on the side of the road. The failure on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry to undergo the training prescribed under [SECTION] of the Rules does not seem to have in any way contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunal has recorded a finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry. The evidence on record does not show that the absence of endorsement under [SECTION] of the Rules in license, Exh. R2, has contributed to the accident. Hence in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in [ENTITY]'s case, [PRECEDENT], it has to be held that the insurer appellant herein is not entitled to avoid its liability to indemnify the insured and the contention of the insurer is liable to be rejected."
65. In the case of [PRECEDENT], in para 13 and 15, the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: "13. A perusal of the aforesaid relevant rules would show that endorsement in the driving license of the applicant is necessary to the effect that he is authorised to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous of hazardous nature to human life. This endorsement was of course not seen on the driving license of respondent No. 3, by the appellants. But, it is equally true that driver was holding a license to drive a tanker. It is not the case of the respondents that accident had taken place on account of the fact that there was no endorsement to drive such a vehicle. The endorsement neither increases the efficiency of the driver nor in its absence the efficiency of the driver is likely to be reduced in any manner whatsoever. It only certifies additionally that he is authorised to drive a goods carriage carrying goods a dangerous or hazardous nature. For driving such a vehicle, no further expertise or driving skill is required. This could be as well as on the part of the driver as well as on the part of appellants herein, but this lapse was not responsible for the cause of accident.
15. Thus, the crux of the matter would be whether such a breach that is to say not having obtained necessary endorsement as required under [SECTION] of the Rules, the accident occurred due to that nonendorsement has been discussed hereinabove, the said endorsement is not required to be given to the driver after having gone through any specialised training or after having passed any special test. Any driver who has held a driving license to drive a tanker would be entitled to this endorsement subject to fulfilling of other conditions as contemplated in [SECTION], but they do not deal with the professional skill of driving. With regard to professional skill of driving, he has already been clarified by the licensing authority at the time of granting of license to him. It is not the case of the respondents that his driving license was not obtained properly."
66. In the present case also, there is no defence of insurance company in the written statement regarding the category of the license. The defence of insurance company in written statement is only that it denies its liability if it is found that the driver was not holding a valid and proper driving license. There is no specific defence that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving license. There is no evidence that the offending vehicle was carrying hazardous and dangerous goods at the time of accident. There is no evidence that the accident occurred due to spillage of hazardous goods on the road. The accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Main cause of accident is not that endorsement to drive vehicles hazardous goods was not there on the license. It is not in dispute that the driver had a valid license to drive the offending vehicle. Therefore, the compensation will be payable by the insurance company.
67. Let the compensation be deposited by the insurance company under intimation to claimant as well as to his counsel by registered post. In case even after passing of 90 days the insurance company fails to deposit this compensation, it shall be recovered by attaching its bank account with a cost of Rs. 5,000/ as per directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of [PRECEDENT].
68. [ENTITY] of this court will also send court notice to the claimant and to his counsel when he receives intimation of deposit of compensation by the insurance company.
69. [ENTITY] will put up this file with a report from the [ENTITY] regarding deposit of compensation again on 10.01.2014.
70. Address of the counsel for claimant for sending the notice intimating deposit of compensation is Sh. [ENTITY], Advocate, H.No. B605, Nav Nirman Apartment, Plot No. 6 A, Sector2, Dwarka, New Delhi, Mobile No. 9868101935.
71. Let a copy of this award be given dasti to all the parties.
72. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court.
On the 30th day of September, 2013 ([ENTITY]) PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNALII DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.