JUDGMENT : Vivek Agarwal, J. 1. This misc. appeal has been filed by the insurance company being aggrieved by award dated 16.10.2015 passed by the Tenth Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, in Claim Case No. 240 of 2013 on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation in favour of the claimants de hors the provisions contained in the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Rules of 1989'). 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the insurance company that rule 131 of the Rules of 1989 deals with the responsibility of the consignor for safe transport of dangerous or hazardous goods. Rule 131 (d) reads as under: "(d) that the driver of the goods carriage is trained in handling the dangers posed during transport of such goods." 3. Learned counsel for the insurance company has also drawn attention of this court to rule 9 (3) which provides for making an endorsement on the driving licence authorising him to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life. For the sake of convenience, rule 9 is reproduced hereinbelow: "9. Educational qualifications for drivers of goods carriages carrying dangerous or hazardous goods.-(1) One year from the date of commencement of Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1993, any person driving a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life shall, in addition to being the holder of a driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, also have the ability to read and write at least one Indian language out of those specified in the VIII Schedule of the Constitution and English and also possess a certificate of having successfully passed a course consisting of following syllabus and periodicity connected with the transport of such goods: xxx xxx xxx (2) The holder of a driving licence possessing the minimum educational qualification or the certificate referred to in sub-section (1) shall make an application in writing on a plain paper along with his driving licence and the relevant certificate to the licensing authority in whose jurisdiction he resides for making necessary entries in his driving licence and if the driving licence is in Form 7, the application shall be accompanied by the fee as is referred to in Sl. No. 8 of the Table to rule 32. 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." 4. Reading such provisions as are contained in rule 9 (3), it is submitted that since the vehicle involved is a tanker meant for transport of petroleum products, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal has overlooked these provisions and has passed an award which needs to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants on the other hand submits that learned Claims Tribunal has read evidence of investigator of the insurance company who has categorically deposed that no hazardous goods were transported in the vehicle which was insured as can be seen from para 7 of the cross-examination of Surendra Singh Rajput, Advocate, and taking this fact into consideration, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. A. Veralaxmi, 2015 ACJ 132 (Chhattisgarh), wherein it has been held that onus is on the insurance company to prove that at the time of accident vehicle was actually carrying dangerous or hazardous goods. Similarly, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Baghelkhand Filling Station v. Brijbhan Prasad, 2006 ACJ 2503 (MP), wherein it has been held by Division Bench of this court that if driver of a tanker is carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature and his licence does not contain an endorsement as contemplated under rule 9 (3), the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability because breach is not so fundamental as to be found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. Similarly, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Renu v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2015 ACJ 890 (Karnataka), wherein it has been held that when no fire or spilling of oil from tanker is indicated no endorsement or special training is required in such a situation. Similarly, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Renu v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2015 ACJ 890 (Karnataka), wherein it has been held that when no fire or spilling of oil from tanker is indicated no endorsement or special training is required in such a situation. Reliance has also been placed on the Division Bench judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Vijaykumari R. v. Kalpana, 2018 ACJ 1462 (Karnataka), wherein it has been held that since insurance company neither produced the policy nor adduced any evidence to show that tanker was carrying petrol at the time of accident, in order to drive empty tanker no special licence is required as the tanker was not carrying any hazardous goods, therefore, there was no breach of policy and insurance company has been held to be liable to compensate. 6. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents submits that they have also filed cross-objections on the ground that income of the deceased has been computed at Rs. 4,545 per month which is on lower side against his actual income of Rs. 18,000 per month. Similarly, dispute has been raised as to the applicability of correct multiplier inasmuch as it is submitted that age of the deceased has been taken to be 41 years, whereas actually his age was 38 years. It is also submitted that no amount has been awarded under the head of future prospects and also under the head of loss of love and affection which needs to be added. 7. As far as cross-objections are concerned, no court-fee has been paid seeking enhancement and, therefore, as far as enhancement is concerned that is not permissible as no court-fee is paid for enhancement. 8. As far as plea of the insurance company to exonerate it on the ground of there being no endorsement to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life in terms of the provisions contained in rule 9 (3) of the Rules of 1989 is concerned, rule 9 provides for educational qualification for drivers of goods carriage carrying dangerous or hazardous goods. The emphasis is on the word carrying. Though learned counsel for the insurance company has mentioned in his rebuttal that as per Exh. The emphasis is on the word carrying. Though learned counsel for the insurance company has mentioned in his rebuttal that as per Exh. P4, which is a seizure memo, there is no mention of the fact that tanker was empty and, therefore, the finding of the Claims Tribunal is perverse, but the fact remains that no evidence has been led by the insurance company to show that goods carriage was carrying dangerous or hazardous goods at the time of accident. Therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Baghelkhand Filling Station, 2006 ACJ 2503 (MP), after taking into consideration ambit and scope of rule 9 (3), rule 9 (4) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) so also by Karnataka High Court in the case of Renu and Vijaykumari R. (supra), this court is of the opinion that neither the breach was so fundamental nor there is any evidence that there was any hazardous goods being transported in the goods vehicle at the time of accident and further as has been held by Karnataka High Court in the case of Renu (supra) at the time of accident neither there was any spillage or fire resulting in the accident so to treat it as a fundamental breach and exonerate the insurance company, therefore, in absence of there being any material to prove that vehicle in question was actually carrying hazardous or dangerous goods, on the contrary investigator of the insurance company has admitted though contrary to the seizure memo, Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding compensation to the claimants. Thus, appeal fails and is dismissed.