FAO No.7029 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.7029 of 2010 Date of Decision. 17.01.2011 2. FAO No.7030 of 2010 Ved Singh son of Sh. Desh Raj and another ......Appellants Versus Krishan Kumar son of Sh. Hawa Singh and another ......Respondents Present: Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The appeals are at the instance of the driver/owner challenging the recovery rights granted to the insurer on the ground that though at the relevant date of the accident namely on 03.06.2008 licence had already expired, it was renewed on 09.06.2008 and therefore, it showed that he was not disqualified from holding a driving licence. This issue is no longer res integra, for it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that renewal which is beyond a period prescribed under Section 15 is not in the eye of law valid to provide for a right of indemnity by the insurer for an accident at the time when there was no licence. Section 15 contemplates a period of 30 days for renewal after the expiry of licence under Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act and if a renewal is made subsequent to that date, then it FAO No.7029 of 2010 -2- should be only taken as a fresh licence. Admittedly, the licence had expired on 13.03.2008 and the renewal had been applied for and taken subsequent to the accident on 09.06.2008. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's view in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jarnail Singh (2007) 15 SCC 28, New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Suresh Chander Aggarwal (2009) 15 SCC 761 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vidhyadhar Mahariwals (2008) 4 PLR 746 all lay down the law to the above extent only. 2. Learned counsel relies on a judgment of a Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sughra Bibi and others I(2007) ACC 316 to hold that non-renewal of licence would not disable him to drive a vehicle. The Court held that it could not be taken to be not duly licenced. I am afraid I cannot follow this ruling when there are direct rulings on the same point of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 3. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. The amount, which has been deposited at the time of preferring the appeal shall be transmitted to the Tribunal in part satisfaction of the award. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 17, 2011 Pankaj*