JUDGMENT : Though this appeal is listed for admission today, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for appellant/Insurance Company and learned counsel appearing for respondents/claimants, the same is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the Judgment and Award dated 25.02.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.611/2011 by the Principal MACT., & Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (‘the Tribunal’ for short), questioning the liability fastened on the Insurance Company. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the claimants have made the claim petition before the Tribunal that the deceased was succumbed to the injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on 22.11.2010 at about 3:20 p.m, on the left side of Richmond road, near Shoolay Circle, opposite to Cathedral P.U. College main road, Bengaluru, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Petrol Tanker bearing registration No.KA-01-B-3886. 4. The Insurance Company in the written statement took the defense that the driver of the said vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident. 5. The claimants in order to substantiate their claim, they have examined the second claimant as P.W.1 and also examined one witness as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P19. On the other hand, respondent has examined one witness as RW.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 to R4. 6. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record, allowed the claim petition of the petitioners in part granting compensation of Rs.5,24,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization. Hence, the present appeal is filed before this Court questioning the finding given by the Tribunal in respect of issue No.2 in coming to the conclusion that the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would vehemently contend that the Tribunal has committed an error in relying upon the judgment of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad reported in 2012 ACJ 2842. The learned counsel would submit that this Court in Kalaburagi Bench in MFA No.30081/2011 vide Judgment dated 16.12.2013 held that if the driver is not having the endorsement to drive the hazardous vehicle, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The learned counsel would submit that this Court in Kalaburagi Bench in MFA No.30081/2011 vide Judgment dated 16.12.2013 held that if the driver is not having the endorsement to drive the hazardous vehicle, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 8. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that the owner was placed ex-parte and this Court also issued notice against the respondent/owner and in both the Courts he did not appear and contest the matter and in the absence of endorsement to drive the hazardous goods vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay the compensation. 9. The claimants were also served and they also not appeared before this Court. 10. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company and on perusal of the grounds urged in the appeal and the materials available on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation? (ii) What order? Point Nos.(i) & (ii): 11. In keeping the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court has to re-appreciate the material available on record. The vehicle involved in the accident is a Petrol Tanker. No doubt, the Petrol Tanker is a hazardous vehicle to carry the hazardous material. The question is whether the driver was having the driving licence. But in the case on hand, the driver had no such endorsement to drive the vehicle. RW.1, who has been examined before the Tribunal also, reiterated the same, but he has produced the Driving Licence Extract and also produced the letter issued to the Insurer and the policy documents. The history sheet of driver Venkatesh S/o Venkate Gowda is produced by the Insurance Company as per Ex.R3, wherein, it is stated that the driver has authorized to drive HTV Vehicle w.e.f. 07.04.2006. The driving license had been renewed from 23.05.2009 to 22.05.2012. The accident was occurred in between i.e., on 22.11.2020. Hence, it can be said that as on the date of the accident, the driver had driving licence to drive Heavy Goods Vehicle. Ex.R4 is the B-Register Extract of a Lorry, wherein, in column No.7, the class of vehicle is shown as HGV-Heavy Goods Vehicle. 12. The accident was occurred in between i.e., on 22.11.2020. Hence, it can be said that as on the date of the accident, the driver had driving licence to drive Heavy Goods Vehicle. Ex.R4 is the B-Register Extract of a Lorry, wherein, in column No.7, the class of vehicle is shown as HGV-Heavy Goods Vehicle. 12. The contention of the Insurance Company is that there should be a separate endorsement on the license to drive the vehicle containing the hazardous substance. The material also discloses that there is no endorsement on the driving license. The evidence of RW.1 is that in order to drive the vehicle containing the hazardous material, the driver should have an endorsement to that effect in the Driving Licence Extract. The Tribunal also had taken note of the Spot Mahazar, which is marked as Ex.P2 and the Spot Mahazar for having seized the Lorry-Ex.P3, it has not been mentioned that the tanker was filled with petrol or hazardous material. In the absence of evidence to that effect, it cannot be said that the driver had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle. It is also observed that if the tanker had been filled with Petrol, in that case it could have been said that, since there is no endorsement authorizing him to drive the vehicle containing hazardous material and therefore the driver did not possess valid driving licence. The Tribunal comes to the conclusion that no material was placed before the Court at the time of the accident that the vehicle which was used was carrying the hazardous material. By referring the Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (supra), the contention was raised and the Allahabad High Court also observed that there was no evidence on record to establish that the tanker was carrying some hazardous material and that the driver was also not cross examined by the Insurance Company on the question of hazardous goods in the vehicle. It is in that context, the Allahabad High Court of Judicature held that the Tribunal was justified in holding the Insurance Company liable. It is in that context, the Allahabad High Court of Judicature held that the Tribunal was justified in holding the Insurance Company liable. Having referred to this Judgment, the Tribunal considered the material in order to prove the fact that the vehicle which was involved in the accident was not containing the hazardous material and further observed that the Insurance Company has failed to establish that the driver was driving the tanker containing the hazardous material i.e., Petrol. Therefore, it cannot be said that the driver was not authorized to drive the said tanker without an endorsement of the Licensing Authority empowering him to drive the vehicle carrying hazardous material. 13. Having considered the material on record available before the Court, particularly, considering the document Exs.P2 and P3, nothing is placed before the Court that the vehicle which was driven by the driver he was carrying the hazardous material in the said vehicle and though the Insurance Company took the said defence in order to substantiate the same, nothing is placed on record except examining the official of the Insurance Company i.e., RW.1. Hence, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation unless the Insurance Company is proved the fact that the vehicle which was involved in the accident was carrying the hazardous material at the time of the accident. Merely because it was a Petrol Tanker, the very contention of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted. No doubt, it requires separate special training and the endorsement to drive the hazardous vehicle, which is carrying the hazardous material. But in the case on hand, no such material is placed before the Tribunal to come to a conclusion that he was driving a hazardous material at the time of the accident. Hence, the very contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Insurance Company is not liable cannot be accepted. 14. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is that the owner was placed exparte before the Tribunal and in this Court also the owner was not responded to the notice issued by this Court and the same cannot be a ground to come to other conclusion. 14. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is that the owner was placed exparte before the Tribunal and in this Court also the owner was not responded to the notice issued by this Court and the same cannot be a ground to come to other conclusion. The very contention that the Court can draw inference cannot be accepted and when the Insurance Company took the specific defence before the Tribunal that he was not having a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle, it is the burden to prove the same and the same has not been proved by the Insurance Company by placing any material. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal to reverse the finding of the Tribunal. 15. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) The amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.