Supreme Court Upholds ‘Pay and Recover’ Order in Oil Tanker Accident Case
The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in M/s. Chatha Service Station v. Lalmati Devi & Ors., upholding the ‘pay and recover’ order against an oil tanker owner whose driver lacked proper hazardous goods driving endorsement. The case involved a fatal accident where an oil tanker hit a bicyclist and pedestrian, killing both victims.
Case Background
The incident occurred when an oil tanker owned by M/s. Chatha Service Station was involved in an accident that killed two individuals. Key facts:
- FIR registered against driver for rash and negligent driving under IPC and Motor Vehicles Act
- Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to victims’ families
- Tribunal directed insurer to pay compensation but recover it from tanker owner since driver lacked hazardous goods endorsement
- Owner’s appeals and review petitions dismissed by Punjab & Haryana High Court
- Owner appealed to Supreme Court challenging ‘pay and recover’ order
Key Arguments
Owner’s Contentions
- Accident caused by rash driving, not related to hazardous goods transport
- Absence of Rule 9 endorsement under Central Motor Vehicles Rules is technical breach
- Produced training certificate in appeal showing driver completed 3-day course
- Relied on various High Court judgments treating similar breaches as venial
Insurer’s Arguments
- Driver clearly lacked mandatory endorsement for hazardous goods transport
- Tanker was carrying oil at time of accident
- Training certificate produced belatedly without explanation
- Certificate lacked serial number and official seal, raising authenticity doubts
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran made several key observations:
1. On Rule 9 Requirements
The Court analyzed Rule 9 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules which requires:
“Any person driving a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature… shall possess a certificate of having successfully passed a course consisting of the syllabus detailed thereunder.”
The Court noted the syllabus includes:
- Defensive driving techniques
- Advanced driving skills
- Emergency procedures for hazardous materials
Rejecting arguments that this was merely a technical requirement, the Court held:
“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.”
2. On Belated Production of Training Certificate
The Court agreed with High Court’s rejection of training certificate produced during appeal:
“There was no explanation for non-production before the Tribunal… The transport vehicle driving licence produced by the driver, admittedly did not have an endorsement.”
The Court noted suspicious aspects of the certificate:
- No serial number
- No official seal
- Driver never claimed training during cross-examination
3. On Vehicle Classification
The Court emphasized that vehicles carrying hazardous goods are specially classified:
“The statute has used [class and description] disjunctively and not alternatively… goods vehicle, simpliciter and those designed to carry dangerous and hazardous goods, fall within the class of ‘transport vehicle’.”
Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and:
- Upheld ‘pay and recover’ order against tanker owner
- Affirmed insurer’s right to recover compensation amount from owner
- Found driver lacked mandatory hazardous goods endorsement
- Rejected belatedly produced training certificate
Significance
This judgment:
- Clarifies strict compliance required for hazardous goods vehicle endorsements
- Reaffirms insurer’s rights in cases of fundamental policy breaches
- Sets standards for belated evidence production in appeals
- Highlights special safety considerations for hazardous transport vehicles
The decision balances victim compensation rights with insurer protections against policy violations, while emphasizing road safety standards for dangerous goods transportation.
Petitioner Name: M/s. Chatha Service Station.Respondent Name: Lalmati Devi & Ors..Judgment By: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran.Place Of Incident: Punjab and Haryana.Judgment Date: 08-04-2025.Result: dismissed.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: ms.-chatha-service-vs-lalmati-devi-&-ors.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-08-04-2025.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Road Accident Cases
See all petitions in Compensation Disputes
See all petitions in Motor Vehicle Act
See all petitions in Negligence Claims
See all petitions in Judgment by Sudhanshu Dhulia
See all petitions in Judgment by K. Vinod Chandran
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments
See all posts in Accident Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Accident Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Accident Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Accident Cases Category
