[Motor Vehicle Rules] Supreme Court Issues Notice In A Plea Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Related To Rule 9 MV Rules, 1989

  • Sakshi Shukla
  • 09:43 PM, 31 Jul 2021

Supreme Court issued notice in an SLP challenging Allahabad High Court Order, where the Court dismissed appeal from the MACT order without considering that a similar question of law stands sub-judice before the Top Court.

The plea says that the Allahabad High Court disregarded opinions rendered by coordinate benches, which held that in order to drive an empty tanker, endorsement on the license stipulated under Rule 9 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 was not required and that the emphasis in Rule 9 is on the word "carrying"

A Division Bench of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V. Ramasubramanian, while hearing the matter, issued notice returnable 8 weeks.

It is pleaded that "A vehicle in order to be treated as carrying hazardous and dangerous goods was firstly required to 'carry' any hazardous or dangerous goods to human life.”

Primary grounds raised by the petitioner:

  1. Settled legal precedents by various other High Courts, were disregarded while dismissing the appeal.
  2. Offending Vehicle was not carrying any hazardous goods.

Reliance is also placed on Rule 132(5) as per which, to ensure that driver is carrying a valid license arises only in the event where the vehicle is actually carrying dangerous goods.

"the Impugned Judgment erroneously held that in the absence of endorsement, there could not be a shifting of burden on the Insurance Company to prove whether at the relevant time of the accident, transport vehicle carried dangerous or hazardous goods or not," the plea states.

Following are the judgments, as produced by the petitioners, which have a contrary finding to the Impugned order:
(i) Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Velmurugan
(ii) Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. K. Manogna

(iii) Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited vs. Shilpa & Ors.
(iv) Allahabad High Court judgment in FAFO No. 578 of 2016 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Savita Katiyar & Ors.
(v) Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunita & Ors.
(vi) Allahabad High Court judgment in FAFO 3112 of 2018, titled the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Lakshmi & Ors. (The SLP against the judgment is pending before this Hon’ble Court: SLP(C) No. (C) 32524/2018)

It is added that the Allahabad High Court also failed to consider the finding of MACT in petitions arising out of the same accident, filed by other claimants, wherein the MACT placed entire liability on the Insurance company. 

The plea was filed through AOR Dhiraj Abraham Philip - Advocate(s) Robin David and Manish Gandhi, appeared for the petitioners.

Case Title: Ramesh Chandra Tiwari v. Madan Singh