JUDGMENT Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Nischal Jagdhari, learned counsel for oppsoite party no. 1 Insurance Company. 2. Both the appeals involving a common question were heard and are being decided finally by a common judgement at the admission stage. 3. These FAFOs filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act essentially question the recovery rights granted in favour of the insurance company to recover the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in favour of the claimants i.e. opposite party no. 2 (in FAFO No. 20 of 2016) and opposite parties no. 2 to 5 (in FAFO No. 21 of 2016) which arise out of the same accident that took place on 13.10.2011 and as a result whereof, claim petitions no. 350 of 2013 and 179 of 2013 respectively were filed before the Tribunal at Hardoi. 4. Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned awards has urged that the recovery rights granted in favour of the insurance company are bad in the eye of law on more than one count. Firstly it is argued that the Tribunal while recording a finding on the question of validity of driving licence has erred in holding that the driver who was plying the hazardous goods transport vehicle was not possessed with a valid driving licence. This submission proceeds on the premise that the driving licence which is issued under Section 15 of Motor Vehicles Act was renewed on 22.2.2011 and the same was valid up to 22.2.2014. The driving licence of which the renewal period was valid also contained an endorsement for the transport of hazardous goods during the period from 24.6.08 to 23.6.09 and thereafter from 7.9.2010 to 6.9.2011. The endorsement for carrying hazardous goods from 24.6.08 to 23.6.09 and from 7.9.2010 to 6.9.2011 are duly endorsed on the licence placed on record alongwith the application for interim relief /stay filed by the appellants. 5. The endorsement for carrying hazardous goods from 24.6.08 to 23.6.09 and from 7.9.2010 to 6.9.2011 are duly endorsed on the licence placed on record alongwith the application for interim relief /stay filed by the appellants. 5. It is further argued that the endorsement of hazardous goods on the driving licence once made is valid and the requirement of such an endorsement so as to validate the period of renewal is not envisaged under any provision of the Motor Vehicles Act for the reason that there is no provision under the Act prescribing for the issuance of an exclusive licence insofar as the transport vehicles carrying hazardous goods are concerned. Though several types of driving licences are provided under the Motor Vehicles Act but a vehicle of the description of ''hazardous goods vehicle' is undefined and there is no provision for issuance of a specific type of licence for carrying hazardous goods except for an endorsement to be made on a valid licence which once made would indemnify the owner's liability. 6. The first submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants is strongly refuted by the learned counsel for the insurance company by making a reference to Section 14 (2) and in particular the proviso appended thereto which reads as under: "14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles. 1. ............... 2. A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall,-- a. in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years; Provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of one year and renewal thereof shall be subject to the condition that the driver undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus;" 7. Learned counsel for the insurance company has further drawn attention of the Court to Section 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act which for ready reference is extracted below: "11. Additions to driving licence. 1. Learned counsel for the insurance company has further drawn attention of the Court to Section 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act which for ready reference is extracted below: "11. Additions to driving licence. 1. Any person holding a driving licence to drive any class or description of motor vehicles, who is not for the time being disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence to drive any other class or description of motor vehicles, may apply to the licensing authority having jurisdiction in the area in which he resides or carries on his business in such form and accompanied by such documents and with such fees as may be prescribed by the Central Government for the addition of such other class or description of motor vehicles to the licence. 2. Subject to such rules as may be prescribed by the Central Government, the provisions of section 9 shall apply to an application under this section as if the said application were for the grant of a licence under that section to drive the class or description of motor vehicles which the applicant desires to be added to his licence." 8. In the light of the aforesaid provisions contained in the statute, attention of the Court was also drawn to Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and it was argued that a driving licence issued for driving a transport vehicle carrying hazardous goods must bear an endorsement in terms of Section 11 read with Rule 9 of the aforesaid rules. 9. Learned counsel for the insurance company also drew attention of this Court to Section 149(2)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act whereunder the obligation on the part of the owner of the vehicle in terms of the aforesaid provision is to the effect that a person driving a vehicle must be duly licenced. Learned counsel has further pointed out that once there is a clause in the contract of insurance as regards compliance of the statute or the rules applicable to the owner of a vehicle, any violation thereof confers full right of defence to the insurer under Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the same in the given set of facts and evidence has rightly been construed by the learned Tribunal in favour of the insurance company. 10. 10. The submission put forth by the learned counsel for the insurance company has substance the reason being that Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act clearly stipulates a sub-category of vehicles in respect of the transport vehicles which may be used for transport of hazardous goods. Once the vehicle involved in an accident is a vehicle of the description of ''hazardous goods vehicle', necessarily the endorsement on the valid licence of the driver becomes a condition precedent in terms of Section 11 of the Act read with Rule 9 of the Motor Vehicles Rules made thereunder so as to be qualified to drive the vehicle of the description of hazardous goods. The observance of this condition has been held to be a mandatory condition in a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Sibbal Singh v. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (FAFO Def. No. 378 of 2010). 11. Coming to the second submission made by Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants that even though the valid driving licence of transport vehicle possessed with by the driver of the vehicle did not bear the requisite endorsement yet there was an evidence in favour of the driver to the effect that he had undergone the requisite training for which a certificate was issued in his favour and the said certificate was filed before the Tribunal alongwith the invoice but the same has remained unattended. 12. From the impugned judgement, it is gathered that alongwith the list of documents an invoice was filed before the Tribunal but there is no mention of a certificate issued within the meaning of Rule 9 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. A perusal of written statement filed before the Tribunal also shows that there is no mention of any such certificate, therefore, it becomes questionable as to whether the certificate filed before the Tribunal was brought to the notice of the Tribunal. A perusal of written statement filed before the Tribunal also shows that there is no mention of any such certificate, therefore, it becomes questionable as to whether the certificate filed before the Tribunal was brought to the notice of the Tribunal. Even if it is presumed that the said document was filed before the Tribunal and remained on record, it cannot be said that merely on the basis of such a document being filed, the driver stands absolved of the requisite endorsement which is statutorily required to be made on the licence as per law by following the procedure prescribed under Rule 9 (2), (3) and (4) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the relevant extract is reproduced hereunder: "9. Educational qualifications for drivers of goods carriages carrying dangerous or hazardous goods (1)..................... (2) The holder of a driving licence possessing the minimum educational qualification or the certificate referred to in sub-rule (1), shall make an application in writing on a plain paper alongwith his driving licence and the relevant certificate to the licensing authority hi whose jurisdiction he resides for making necessary entries in Ms driving licence and if the driving licence is in Form 7 the application shall be accompanied by the fee as is referred to in Serial No. 8 of the Table to rule 32. (3) The licensing authority, on receipt of the application referred to in sub-rule (2), shall make an endorsement in the driving licence of the applicant to the effect that he is authorised to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life. (4) A licensing authority other than the original licensing authority making any such endorsement shall communicate the fact to the original licensing authority." 13. The appellants have failed to state in the written statement any such defence, therefore, the certificate which even if filed, is of no legal consequence, particularly when the driver has failed to make an application for any such endorsement in the driving licence on the basis of said certificate of training. The certificate for carrying hazardous goods being valid for a year, therefore, an endorsement on the driving licence can only be made on the basis of an application being filed before the competent authority alongwith the requisite documents of training. The certificate for carrying hazardous goods being valid for a year, therefore, an endorsement on the driving licence can only be made on the basis of an application being filed before the competent authority alongwith the requisite documents of training. It is not the case of the appellants that the driver had ever filed an application before the competent authority so as to validate his licence for transporting hazardous goods on the basis of any certificate. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants in order to substantiate his contention further drew attention of this Court to a judgement rendered by the apex court reported in (2013) 7 SCC 62 (S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and another) as well as the judgement rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in FAFO No. 2153 of 2015 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Seema and 5 others). Referring to the aforesaid judgements, it was argued that the endorsement on the licence even if not made, that would not absolve the insurance company from its liability of the risk attached to the insurance policy. The Division Bench judgement referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants was rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case and cannot be read beyond the scope of statutory provisions as have been placed before this Court to support the judgement rendered by the Tribunal in the instant case. Insofar as the apex court judgement is concerned, the dispute involved before the apex court in that case was based on a valid licence, therefore, in the present case where an endorsement on the driving licence for transporting hazardous goods is a condition precedent, the apex court judgement referred to by the appellants is of no help. Once the legislature in its wisdom has specifically provided a condition to be adhered to for the purposes of validity of a licence, adherence to the same being the object of law is fully covered under the insurance policy to the advantage of the insurer and the defence available on this premise under Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot be diluted and construed to the advantage of the owner of the vehicle against whom recovery rights have been granted. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shashi Prabha Sharma and others, [ 2015 (33) LCD 2295 ] has already reiterated the law on the scope of defence available under Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to the insurance companies. 15. Lastly it was argued that the endorsement required under the Statute does not involve the implication of any financial gain in favour of the insurance company, therefore, unless the injury is a direct consequence of the hazardous goods, the insurance company would be liable to compensate the accident under the same policy. The argument advanced is attractive but the same cannot be accepted for more than one reason. Firstly, the two covenants in the policy viz. the violation of contract and violation of law are independent of each other. Secondly, the covenant of violation of law is to discipline the public at large and this wide purpose of law runs at the risk of owner of the vehicle which the insurance companies in their policy specifically require the owner of a vehicle to observe and adhere to. The purpose of law in some situation is next to the will of God and an insurance company unless it provides to cover the same, the defence cannot be reversed. Once this defence is within the ambit of Section 149 (2), any view taken against the legislative intent of statute would defeat the purpose of law, hence the argument fails. 16. Having regard to the statutory provision and its interpretation made above, the appeals filed by the appellants being bereft of any merit, do not call for any interference. 17. Both the appeals are rejected.