fa1625.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1625 OF 2011 New India Assurance Company Ltd Aurangabad Through its Divisional Manager Adalat Road, Aurangabad .. APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Sunanda w/o Vijay Koli age 35 years, occ. household r/o Paldhi(Kd.), Tq. Dharangaon Dist. Jalgaon. 2. Bhikan s/o Vijay Koli age 13 years. occ. education 3. Sonu Vijay Koli age 8 years, occ. education 4. Gayatri Vijay Koli age 6 years occ. nil ( Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are minors u/g of respondent No. 1 real mother ) 5. Sayyad Mohsin Raza Sayyed Ali age major, occ. transport r/o House No. 6249 Behind Gitanjali Talkies Raza Hanspuri, Nagpur. .. RESPONDENTS fa1625.11 2 Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, advocate for the appellant. Mr. V.P. Patil, advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. R.A. Shedge, advocate holding for Mr. J.V. Deshpande, advocate for respondent No.5. ===== CORAM : A.V. POTDAR DATE : 23 rd NOVEMBER, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon in MACP No. 130/2006 filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 wherein the tribunal partly allowed the petition with proportionate cost by holding appellant / insurance company and respondent No. 5 who was arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the petition to be jointly and severally liable and directed to pay compensation to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the sum of Rs. 4,17,500/- inclusive of amount of ‘No Fault Liability’ within a period of one month from the date of award alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5 percent from the date of filing of the application till realisation of the full amount. Further directions were issued about how the amount to be invested in the names of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 as they were minor at the time of filing of the petition. fa1625.11 3 2. Admit. By consent, heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. Facts which are necessary for just decision of this appeal can be summarised as under : . Victim / deceased Vijay Koli was passing on his motorcycle on National High Way No. 4 on 17-8-2003. When he reached near village Paldhi, the then taluka Erandol, now Dharangaon, Dist. Jalgaon, at about 7:15 p.m. a tempo (Swaraj Mazda) bearing No. MH-27-C-241 dashed his motorcycle. The victim was taken to the hospital where he reported to be dead. Accordingly, the accident was reported in Paldhi police station and FIR came to be lodged. Offence came to be registered under section 304- A, 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the vehicle. In due course, legal heirs of deceased Vijay i.e. respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 130/2006 under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation. Respondent No. 2 contested the claim petition by filing written statement at Exh. 14. Owner of the vehicle / respondent No. 5 herein did not appear before the Court below, hence petition proceeded ex-parte against him. After framing issues, parties were fa1625.11 4 put to trial. It is one of the defences that the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident which defence was negatived by the Court below. 4. Heard learned counsel Mr. Chapalgaon for the appellant followed by submissions of Mr. Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 / original claimants. It is contended across the bar that on the date of accident i.e. 17-8-2003 the driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence. As per the record, the date of expiry of driving licence of the driver of the vehicles is 18-7-2003 while the accident occurred on 17-8-2003. In this context, appellant herein examined one Gajanan Rathod as witness for respondent no. 2 who was serving in the office of RTO. He has stated that the licence was renewed. Now whether the licence expired on 18-7-2003 is valid for a period of further thirty days from the date of its expiry is the question of law before this Court. In this context, observations of the lower Court in paragraph No. 14 of the judgment are required to be reproduced which read as follows : 14 It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 2 that, at the relevant time, the driver of swaraj Mazda vehicle was not having valid and effective fa1625.11 5 driving licence and in order to prove this fact, the respondent No. 2 has examined Gajanan Mansing Rathod as defence witness. The learned Advocate for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the evidence of the said witness goes to show that the driving licence of Shaikh Ambat Shaikh Mehboob expired on 18.07.2003 and the accident took place on 17.08.2003. It is his contention the driver of said Swaraj Mazda was not holding the valid and effective driving licence during this period of one month. I do not find any substance in this contention of the learned Advocate of respondent No. 2. I think it because as per proviso to section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which clearly goes to show that one month grace period is given to the licence holder to renew his licence and during this grace period the driving licence continue to be effective for a period of 30 days from the expiry date of that licence. This fact, is also admitted by the witness of the respondent No. 2, i.e. Gajanan Mansing Rathod and hence, I do not find any hesitation to hold that, the driver of Swaraj Mazda vehicle was holding valid and effective driving licence on the date on which the accident took place. . Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads thus : 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 fa1625.11 6 undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus; and ] (b) in the case of any other licence, --- (i) if the person obtaining the licence,either originally or on renewal thereof, has not attained the age of [fifty years] on the date of issuance or, as the case may be, renewal thereof, --- (A) be effective for a period of twenty years from the date of such issue or renewal; or (B) until the date on which such person attains the age of [fifty years], whichever is earlier; (ii) if the person referred to in sub-clause (i), has attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or, as the case may be, renewal thereof, be effective, on payment of such fee as may be prescribed, for a period of five years from the date of such issue or renewal] Provided that every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section, continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry. . It is tried to urge on behalf of the insurance company that the date of expiry of driving licence was in the month of July which is the month comprising of 31 days. The date of accident i.e. 17-8-2003 is coming exactly on the 30 th day. Considering this aspect, it is tried to urge that the date on which accident occurred, the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid licence and as such as the vehicle was driven by the driver without holding fa1625.11 7 any valid licence, insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. 5. The date of expiry of the licence is not in dispute so also the date of accident is also not disputed. Witness No. 2 for respondent has contended that the licence will remain valid for a period of 30 days from the date of expiry as it comes within the ambit of section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Technically speaking, the last day of expiry of the licence is to be excluded and if this date is excluded, the day on which accident took place appears to be the 30 th day. In the light of this, even on technical aspect it cannot be said that on the day and date on which accident took place, the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid driving licence. Considering this aspect, technical objection raised by the insurance company needs to be answered in negative. No other issue is raised in this appeal. Considering this aspect, appeal sans any merit, stands dismissed. No costs. 6. As the appeal stands dismissed, pending civil application does not survive and stands disposed of. fa1625.11 8 7. The amount deposited by the appellant / insurance company in this Court be remitted back to the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jalgaon. ( A.V. POTDAR ) JUDGE dyb