JUDGMENT N.S.Sanjay Gowda, J. - The claimant has filed this appeal challenging the rejection of his claim petition. 2. The case put forth before the Tribunal was that when the claimant was traveling in an Auto Rickshaw along with his friends, a tanker lorry collided with the auto rickshaw, as a result of which, the claimant and other inmates suffered grievous injuries. According to the claimant, the injuries sustained by him has resulted in permanent disabilities to him and therefore, he is entitled for compensation. 3. The claim petition was contested only by the Insurance Company. 4. The owner of the vehicle chose to remain absent and hence, was placed exparte. 5. Insurance company took up the contention that driver of the tanker lorry did not have a valid and effective driving license. It was the case of the Insurance Company that the tanker in question was a tanker designed to carry hazardous goods and the driver of the vehicle did not possess necessary endorsement to drive the tanker lorry and therefore, the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay any compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the sketch which was produced clearly indicated that the accident occurred only because of negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry. She further contended that requirement of having endorsement to drive the tanker designed to carry hazardous goods would have no relevance since driving skills involved are no way different for driving a normal tanker/tractor. She further contended that the Insurance Company could be made liable for compensation. 7. Sri. A.N. Krishna Swamy, learned counsel for Insurance Company, on the other hand, contended that law mandated that driver of the goods transport vehicle which is carrying hazardous goods must undergo a refresher course as provided in Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules and obtain an endorsement thereafter on the licence. It is submitted that when this requirement was not complied with, it will have to be held that the driver of the tanker was a person who did not hold a valid driving license and as a consequence, the Insurance Company would be absolved of all liability. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Shri Velumurugan V and Another, (2015) ILR(Kar) 393 . 8. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Shri Velumurugan V and Another, (2015) ILR(Kar) 393 . 8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel and also perused the materials on record. 9. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the driver of the tanker lorry did not have a license to drive a transport vehicle with hazardous goods and therefore, the Insurance Company could not be saddled with any liability. 10. The Division Bench of this Court in the above mentioned case has noticed that in order to drive an empty tanker, no such license as contemplated under Rule 9 was required. Unfortunately, in this case, no evidence is adduced by either party, which indicates, whether the transport vehicle in question was carrying hazardous goods or whether it was running empty. In my view, in order to saddle the liability on the Insurance Company, the Tribunal is required to determine whether the tanker lorry in question was, as a matter of fact, carrying any hazardous goods, at the time of the accident. If the tanker lorry was not carrying any hazardous goods, it is needless to say that the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability. 11. In view of the above, it would be just and proper to remand the matter to Tribunal to determine as to whether the tanker lorry in question was in fact carrying any hazardous goods as on the date of accident. The parties to the claim petition are granted liberty to adduce evidence in this regard. 12. The Tribunal shall after recording the evidence, proceed to decide the liability and compensation that the claimant may be entitled with afresh in accordance with law. 13. Thus, the appeal is allowed. Both the parties have appeared before this Court. It is necessary to direct them to appear before the Tribunal on 28.10.2020 without awaiting any further notice in this regard. Ordered accordingly.