Chhattisgarh HC: No Hazardous Endorsement on Licence, Insurer Can Recover Oil Tanker Compensation

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 130 | 2026:CGHC:970

January 07, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has held that a driver of an oil tanker must have a specific endorsement on their licence to operate a vehicle designed to carry hazardous goods, even if the tanker is empty at the time of the accident.

In a judgment delivered on January 7, 2026, Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey partly allowed an appeal filed by The Oriental Insurance Company Limited in MAC No. 563 of 2022.

The case arose from a fatal road accident that took place on July 30, 2018. Yogita Pal, aged 26, was riding her motorcycle when it was hit by an oil tanker. Her husband filed a compensation claim stating that she was earning Rs. 9,530 per month. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Raipur awarded Rs. 18,91,512 with 9 percent annual interest and fixed liability on the insurance company.

The insurer challenged only the liability aspect of the award. It argued that the driver of the tanker did not possess the mandatory endorsement under Rule 9(3) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which authorizes a driver to operate a goods carriage carrying dangerous or hazardous goods. While the driver held a licence for heavy transport vehicles, there was no specific endorsement permitting him to drive a hazardous goods vehicle.

Before the Tribunal, the insurance company had produced officials from both the insurance office and the District Transport Office to show that no such endorsement existed on the driver’s licence. Despite this, the Tribunal held that since the tanker was empty at the time of the accident, the absence of endorsement did not amount to a breach serious enough to absolve the insurer of liability.

The High Court disagreed with that reasoning. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Chatha Service Station v. Lalmati Devi, which clarified the scope of Rule 9. The Supreme Court had held that drivers of vehicles meant to carry hazardous goods must undergo specialized training and obtain a specific endorsement, and that the requirement is not a mere technical formality.

The apex court had further observed that the training syllabus under Rule 9 covers defensive driving, advanced driving skills, and emergency handling procedures. It also made it clear that even an empty tanker, designed for hazardous transport, cannot be driven without the required endorsement.

Applying this principle, the High Court found that the absence of endorsement was a breach of statutory requirements. However, following the approach adopted by the Supreme Court, the court directed the insurance company to first pay the compensation to the claimant and then recover the amount from the owner of the oil tanker.

The court modified the Tribunal’s award to this limited extent. It noted that 60 percent of the award amount had already been deposited pursuant to an interim order. The insurer has been directed to deposit the remaining amount within 60 days and may thereafter recover the entire compensation, along with interest, from the vehicle owner.

The ruling reinforces that compliance with Rule 9(3) is mandatory and that insurers can invoke the absence of hazardous vehicle endorsement as a valid defence, though claimants’ interests will remain protected through a pay-and-recover mechanism.

Case Reference : MAC No. 563 of 2022, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Fanesh Pal and Others; Counsels: For Appellant/Insurance Company – Mr. R.N. Pusty and Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocates; For Respondent No. 1/Claimant – Mr. Priya Kaiwart, Advocate holding brief for Mr. Akhand Pratap Pandey, Advocate; For Respondent No. 3/Owner – Mr. A.L. Singroul and Ms. Shaleeni Jangde, Advocates; For Respondent No. 2/Driver – None, though served.