ORDER Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Retd.) President: - Sole question involved in this appeal is, what is the effect of renewal of a driving license beyond period of thirty days from the date of its expiry as envisaged under Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? In case renewal is to date back to the date of expiry even when the license is renewed beyond thirty days of its expiry, appeal has to be allowed. Otherwise there is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum. For ready reference, Section 15(1) First Proviso of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is relevant for determining the controversy involved in this appeal is extracted herein below :- "15. Renewal of driving licences. - 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." 2. Facts regarding which learned Counsel for the parties were not at variance at the time of hearing of this appeal, also need to be noted briefly. Vehicle bearing registration No. HP-33-3387 is owned by the appellant. It was insured with the insurer-respondent in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. During the currency of the insurance policy, it met with an accident on 30.6.2001 near village Ram Bag Salnoo, P.O. Barmana, District Bilaspur at about 8.00 p.m. Intimation of this accident was given to the respondent. Surveyor was appointed to get the spot surveyed. Thereafter loss was got assessed by the respondent from M/s. Eminent Surveyors, who assessed the loss to the vehicle at Rs. 44,104/-. Claim was lodged with the respondent. Appellant amongst other things was called upon to produce the registration certificate and the driving licence of the driver who was on the wheel at the time of accident, besides other documents. Despite the needful having been done, instead of setting the claim, it was repudiated on 4.1.2002. Sole ground for repudiation of the claim was that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident i.e. 30.6.2001, thus there was violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Despite the needful having been done, instead of setting the claim, it was repudiated on 4.1.2002. Sole ground for repudiation of the claim was that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident i.e. 30.6.2001, thus there was violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In this background, complaint was filed before the District forum below. Besides Rs. 56,000/- a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as litigation charges Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and suffering, interest @ 18% per annum plus Rs. 3,000/- was claimed by the respondent. 3. Admittedly, accident had taken place on 30.6.2001. Driver of the appellant could have got his driving license renewed within thirty days of the date of its expiry. Driving license being valid from 26.8.1977 to 25.8.2000 is another fact that is relevant in this case and is being noted. This fact is also not in dispute. Instead of getting it renewed within thirty days as required under Section 15(1) First Proviso supra, it was got renewed on 15.10.2001 with effect from 25.8.2000 to 4.8.2003. 4. Faced with the above facts, Mr. Thakur on behalf of the appellant by placing reliance on a Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Paulose, 2004(1) Transport and Accident Cases 713, submitted that this appeal deserves to be allowed and claim of his client accepted. Shri Thakur also placed reliance on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru and others, AIR 2003 SC 1292 as well as of the National Commission in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kishan Bhai, 2005(1) CPR 40 (NC) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sant Kumar Goyal, 2005(1) CPR 45 (NC). On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company relied upon the decision of this Commission in Appeal No. 177/2002 titled United Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri Shyam Lal and another, decided on 3.6.2003. This judgment is based on the decision of the National Commission in Revision Petition no. 725/2001 titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Suhnder Thakur, dated 6.5.2002 is relied. National Commission in turn has placed reliance in its decision, on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jarnail Singh and others. 725/2001 titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Suhnder Thakur, dated 6.5.2002 is relied. National Commission in turn has placed reliance in its decision, on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jarnail Singh and others. We find that the decision of this Commission which is based on the decisions of the National Commission and the Honble Supreme Court, squarely covers the present case on facts as well as on law. 5. Even earlier, the National Commission in the case of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadav Narendrabhai Jethabhai, 1996 NCJ 121 had taken similar view. While upholding the order of the District Forum and setting aside the order of the State Commission, it was held as under in this decision of the National Commission :- "7. In the present case the driving licence of Bhavsar Priyakant Mafatlal had expired as early as on 11th November, 1979 and the application for renewal had been filed only after a lapse of nearly 12 years. Such being the factual situation, the renewed driving licence could be effective only from 21st May, 1991, that being the date on which the renewal was actually granted. Hence on the date when the accident occurred the driver of the vehicle was not holding an effective and valid driving licence. The Insurance Company was, therefore, fully justified in repudiating its liability in respect of the claim put forward by the complainant. 8. We accordingly hold that the State Commission acted illegally and without jurisdiction in interfering with the order of the District Forum which had rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent herein. The Revision Petition is accordingly allowed, the order of the State Commission is set aside and that passed by the District Forum dismissing the complaint is hereby restored. The parties will bear their respective costs." 6. We may notice here that the decisions relied upon in support of the appeal by Mr. Thakur referred to hereinabove are wholly inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. So far decision in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru is concerned it has no applicability to the facts of the present case. We may notice here that the decisions relied upon in support of the appeal by Mr. Thakur referred to hereinabove are wholly inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. So far decision in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru is concerned it has no applicability to the facts of the present case. There is nothing in the complaint alleged by the appellant that he had verified the licence on or about the date of accident and/or despite due diligence he was not aware that the licence was required to be renewed. 7. Similarly, so far two decisions of National Commission in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kishan Bhai and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sant Kumar Goyal (supra) are concerned likewise, those are wholly inapplicable. Admittedly present is not a case of fake licence. Here, the question involved in he case before us is whether a licence which is renewed beyond thirty days will date back to the date of its renewal or to the date of its expiry. This matter is set at rest by the decision of this Commission, National Commission as well as of the Honble Supreme Court of India. In addition to these decisions, identical question cropped up before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in FAO (MVA) No. 355/1988 decided on 18.8.2005 in the case of National Insurance Company v. Amar Chand and others, and plea of the Insurance Company as was urged in the case before us was upheld. Reference in this behalf can also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Malla Prakasarao v. Malta Janaki and others, 2004(3) Supreme Court Cases 343 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, 2004(3) Supreme Court Cases 297. What was held in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, in this paragraph 45, was as under "45.. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, 2004(3) Supreme Court Cases 297. What was held in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, in this paragraph 45, was as under "45.. Thus, a person whose licence is ordinarily renewed in terms of the Motor Vehicle Act and the Rules framed there under, despite the fact that during the interregnum period, namely, when the accident took place and the date of expiry of the licence, he did not have a valid licence, he could during the prescribed period apply for renewal thereof and could obtain the same automatically without undergoing any further test or without having been declared unqualified therefore. Proviso appended to Section 14 in unequivocal terms states that the license remains valid for a period of thirty days from the day of its expiry." 8. High Court in its judgment dated 18.8.2005 (supra) held as under:- "27. From a perusal of the bare provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as the judgments of the various Courts and especially the observations of the Apex Court in Swaran Singhs case (supra), it is clear that the Insurance Company can defined an action on the ground that the petitioner was not duly licensed on the date of the accident. Can a person whose license has expired and not renewed within thirty days of its expiry, as provided under Sections 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, be considered to be duly licensed on the date of the accident. In my humble opinion, the answer to this question has to be in the negative. "28. The Apex Court in Swaran Singhs case (supra) in paras 45 and 46 quoted above has clearly laid down that the license remains valid only for a period of thirty days from the date of its expiry. The question as to what happens if the license is not renewed within thirty days has not been answered in this judgment. From the bare reading of the provisions as well as the interpretation given by the Honble Supreme Court it can be said that after thirty days of the expiry there is no driving license. The driver has neither an effective driving license nor can be said to be duly licensed. From the bare reading of the provisions as well as the interpretation given by the Honble Supreme Court it can be said that after thirty days of the expiry there is no driving license. The driver has neither an effective driving license nor can be said to be duly licensed. It would run counter to the very provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act if it is held that though the license had expired and not been renewed even within the time allowed in law, the driver is duly licensed. A driver, who permits his license to expire and does not get it renewed till after the accident, cannot claim that it should be deemed that the license is renewed retrospectively. The proviso to Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act clearly provides that if the license is not renewed within thirty days of its expiry, (the driving license shall be renewed within thirty days of its expiry, the driving license shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal. This renewal can never be retrospective. Therefore, it has to be held that if the driving license is not renewed within thirty days it will only be a valid driving license from the date of its renewal. The driver cannot be deemed to be duly licensed on the date of accident if thirty days have already expired from the date of expiry of his license and the same has not been renewed within thirty days." 9. Any interpretation to the contrary would be multiplying the statutory and mandatory provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 thus violating legislative intent, therefore, cannot be accepted. 10. In the face of these decisions, we are neither bound nor need to follow the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Oriental-Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Paulose (supra). 11. No other point was urged.In view of the above factual position and law governing the same, we find no infirmity with the impugned order passed by the District Forum below and consequently we hereby dismiss this appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.