Stringent norms required for transporters while engaging drivers

Dutta Service Station in Kangra District  of Himachal Pradesh owned a petrol tanker. It was insured with National Insurance between March 12, 2013 and March 11, 2014. 

The service station had employed a driver for the tanker, which was used to transport petroleum products from Jalandhar to Shaheed Padam Singh Filling Station, Ghaziabad. On August 14, 2013, he unloaded the goods, parked the tanker near the petrol pump, and slept in his cabin. The tanker caught fire and got burnt. A First Information Report was registered with the police and the insurer was intimated.

The insurer appointed a surveyor who inspected the vehicle and carried out an investigation. An investigator was also appointed. The claim was later rejected on several counts, one of which was that the driver had not undergone the mandatory annual training from a government authorised institute. This is essential for transporting hazardous goods.

Aggrieved by the repudiation, the insured filed a complaint before the district forum. The insurer contested the case. It alleged that the fire had occurred while the driver, in collusion with other persons, was stealing petroleum products from the tanker. Besides, the driver was  ineligible to drive a tanker carrying petroleum products, since he had not undergone the mandatory training.

The forum upheld the insurer’s defence and dismissed the complaint. The insured challenged this order before the Punjab State Commission, but its appeal was dismissed. The insured then filed a revision petition.

The National Commission observed that the driver had obtained a driving licence for a light motor vehicle, which was subsequently endorsed for a heavy transport vehicle. The licence did not contain any endorsement to show that it was also valid for driving a heavy vehicle carrying hazardous goods, such as petroleum products. The Commission considered Rule 9(1) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules which imposes various conditions to make a driver eligible to drive a goods vehicle transporting hazardous products. The Rule provides that the Licensing Authority would have to make an endorsement on the driving licence authorising a driver to drive a goods vehicle carrying dangerous or hazardous products. The Commission found that the tanker driver’s licence did not bear any such endorsement, and so he was not eligible to drive the petroleum tanker. Considering this to be sufficient reason to reject the claim, the Commission considered it unnecessary to deal with the other reasons for repudiation of the claim.

Accordingly, by its order of February 21, 2018 delivered by Justice VK Jain, the National Commission concluded that Dutta Service Station had violated the terms of the policy by engaging a person to drive the tanker without a valid licence and dismissed the revision petition. When engaging a driver, ensure that he is not only eligible to drive a particular class of vehicle but also meets other eligibility criteria.

The writer is a consumer activist