IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- F.A.O. No. 4247 of 2007 Date of decision: 5.3.2008 M/s. India Road Lines through its partner Dara Singh --- Appellant Versus Ruldu Ram and others --- Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the appellant. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This appeal at the instance of the owner of the offending vehicle is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar dated 1.4.2006 whereby a sum of Rs. 3,12,000/- has been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants, for the death of Rajesh Kumar, an unmarried young man of 23 years. The victim Rajesh Kumar was working as a Conductor on the ill-fated Bus bearing registration No. PW-02-W-9992 when it turned turtle in the area of village Mand on 16.5.2004 and in the said process, Rajesh Kumar came under the bus and died at the spot. The bus at the relevant time was being driven by Bhupinder Singh, respondent No.7, whereas respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are the claimants. In the petition seeking F.A.O. No. 4247 of 2007 compensation, it was alleged that the bus was being driven rashly and in negligent manner and it over-turned due to negligence of the driver and as a result of the said accident, Rajesh Kumar lost his life. The Tribunal accepted the claimants’ plea and held that Rajesh Kumar died in the accident which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. PB-02-W-9992 by its driver-Bhupinder Singh. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal on the basis of evidence led on record, assessed the dependency of the claimants on the deceased to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month and having regard to the age of the deceased who was just 23 years of age and was unmarried at the time of accident, applied multiplier of 13 and consequently calculated compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,12,000/-. As regards liability, the Tribunal held that the driver of the offending Bus was not holding valid licence on the day of the accident to drive the vehicle in question. The Tribunal, thus, fastened the liability to pay the compensation on the driver and the owner of the offending Bus and absolved the Insurance Company with which the offending Bus was insured. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the Bus was not holding valid licence to drive the vehicle in question was wrong and illegal. The counsel referred to the statement of RW-1 Amarjit Kaur and stated that according to her, the licence of the driver, Bhupinder Singh was renewed by their office from 9.5.2001 to 8.5.2004 and thereafter from 22.6.2004 to 21.6.2007. According to the learned counsel, for the purpose of renewal, there is a 2 F.A.O. No. 4247 of 2007 relaxation of 30 days after the expiry of period of licence. The learned counsel argued that the application for renewal of the licence was made by the driver within the period of 30 days and thus in view of the provisions of Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) the period for renewal of the driving licence shall be counted with effect from the date of its expiry i.e. from 8.5.2004 and, therefore, on the date of the accident which took place on 16.5.2004, the driver was holding a valid licence to drive the vehicle in question. Before dealing with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, it is desirable to refer the statutory provisions on the subject, i.e. Section 15(1) of the Act which reads thus: “15. Renewal of driving licence.- (1) Any licensing authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry: Provided that in any case where the application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal: Provided further that where the application is for the renewal of a licence to drive a transport vehicle or where in any other case the applicant has attained the age of forty years, the same shall be accompanied by a medical certificate in the same form and in the same manner as is referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8, and the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 8 shall, so far as may be, apply 3 F.A.O. No. 4247 of 2007 in relation to every such case as they apply in relation to a learner’s licence.” According to the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Act, a licence can be renewed from the date of its expiry provided an application is made for that purpose. However, the proviso to Section 15 (1) of the Act provides that where the application for renewal is made more than 30 days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal. If the licence is not renewed within 30 days of the date of its expiry, the necessary corollary would be that the driver had no valid licence to drive the vehicle, from the date of expiry of the licence till it was issued by the licensing authority after renewal. The Tribunal while recording a finding in this regard held that no evidence was led to show that the driver of the offending vehicle had filed any application for renewal of his driving licence within a period of 30 days from its expiry, on the basis of which it could be held that the licence was renewed from the date of its expiry. The Tribunal observed that the licence of the driver was renewed from 22.6.2004 to 21.6.2007 i.e. after a period of 1½ months of its expiry. On this basis the Tribunal concluded that the driver was not having valid driving licence to drive the ill-fated bus at the time of the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant could not show from record or otherwise, that the said finding was patently wrong and illegal and was legally not sustainable. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal has rightly held the driver and the owner of the offending bus liable to pay the amount of compensation jointly and severally. No other point was urged before me. 4 F.A.O. No. 4247 of 2007 In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) March 05, 2008 JUDGE *RKMALIK* 5