IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO No.2267/2009(O&M) Date of Decision: 26.5.2009. Naresh Kumar and another ..........Appellant Versus Sheo Ram and another ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.JP Sharma,Advocate for the appellants. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). Driver and owner of Commander Jeep bearing registration no.HR- 35-8833 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) have filed the present appeal challenging the award dated 4.2.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, allowing the claim petition filed by respondent no.1 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) granting him a sum of Rs.58,000/- as compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition till realization on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident caused by the offending vehicle. In the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, it was case of the respondent no.1-Sheo Ram that on 5.8.2007 he alongwith Kishan Lal were coming to Narnaul on motorcycle owned and being driven by Kishan Lal. At that time they were followed by one Mam Chand on his own motorcycle. While they were going from Village Khol to Kund at about 8 pm, the FAO No.2267/2009(O&M) 2 offending vehicle came from the opposite side being driven by petitioner no.1- Naresh Kumar in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the side of the motorcycle. The respondent no.1 received direct hit on his left foot as a result of which he sustained fracture on his right foot. The petitioner stopped the jeep, abandoned it and fled away from the spot. FIR No.187 dated 19.8.2007 under Sections 279,337 IPC was lodged. The witness was allegedly witnessed by Kishan Lal and Mahesh. With these averments claimant-respondent no.1 sought a compensation of Rs.7 lacs on account of injuries suffered by him in the said accident. Petitioners i.e. owner and driver of the offending vehicle denied the averments contained in the claim petition and stated that it was a concocted case. The Insurance Company-respondent no.2 denied that the accident in question had taken place and even if the same is proved they were not liable to pay the compensation due to violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Issues were framed. Parties led evidence in support of their respective pleas. After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.Rs.58,000/- as compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition till realization on account of injuries suffered by claimant-Sheo Ram in the said motor vehicular accident. The petitioners were jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation while the Insurance Company was held not liable to FAO No.2267/2009(O&M) 3 pay the compensation. Hence the present appeal. The factum of accident, involvement of offending vehicle, receipt of injury by respondent no.1 in the said accident and quantum of compensation awarded are not disputed. The sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that at the time of accident, appellant no.1 was holding a valid driving licence which was duly exhibited as R1 and proved by Clerk from the office of Licensing Authority, and as such the learned Tribunal erred in absolving the Insurer of its liability to pay the compensation. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the paper book, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. It has come on record that appellant no.1 was holding driving licence no.1649 issued on 28.6.2002 which was valid up to 27.6.2005. The said licence was thereafter renewed vide DL No.1305/R/08 dated 1.5.2008 and is valid upto 30.4.2011. Thus it is clear that the driving licence held by the appellant no.1 was not valid for the period from 28.6.2005 to 30.4.2008, which includes the date of accident i.e. 5.8.2007. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the subsequent renewal of the driving licence, it will be deemed to be valid for the said intervening period. However, I find no merit in this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. A perusal of Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 shows that where the application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days FAO No.2267/2009(O&M) 4 after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal. In the present case, the driving licence held by appellant no. 1 expired on 27.6.2005 and it was got renewed on 1.5.2008 i.e. after a period of nearly three years. The accident in this case had taken place on 5.8.2007. Thus, on the date of accident, the driving licence held by the appellant was not valid and effective. In this view of the matter, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that on the date of accident the appellant no.1 was not holding a valid licence and consequently, the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the owner and driver. No fault can be found with this finding of the learned Tribunal. No other point has been urged. Accordingly,finding no merit in this appeal the same is hereby dismissed in limine. 26.5.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge4