Judgment ( 1. ) BEING aggrieved by the award dated 29-8-2003, passed by additional MACT, Sardarpur, in Claim Case No. 86/2000, whereby in a injury case learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/-, the present appeal has been filed on the ground that amount awarded is inadequate. ( 2. ) SHORT facts of the case are that appellant filed a claim petition alleging that on 13-6-2000, wnen appellant was going to his house at that time TATA 407 bearing Registration No. M. P. 09 KB 1408, which was driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3 dashed the appellant, with the result appellant sustained crush injuries in his left leg and there was fracture of 3rd, 4th and 5th metatarsal bone. It was alleged that appellant was hospitalized for a period of 3 days at Sardarpur and 9 days at district Hospital Dhar. It was alleged that the leg of the appellant was plastered and appellant was on bed rest. In the claim petition it was alleged that since accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, therefore, respondents are liable for payment of compensation. The claim petition was contested by respondents No. 1 and 2 by filing written statement, however, the case proceeded ex parte. Thereafter against them Respondent No. 3 also contested the case on various grounds including on the ground that respondent no. 1 was not possessing valid driving licence at the relevant time. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/-, which has already been paid by respondent No. 3 to the appellant. ( 3. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant the amount awarded is on lower side. Learned counsel submits that there was permanent disability to the extent of 22%. Learned counsel submits that learned Tribunal has also not given any break-up of the amount of Rs. 30,000/ -. ( 4. ) MR. Tomar, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant the amount awarded is just and proper. ( 5. ) MR. Milind Phadke, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the respondent No. 3 has already paid the amount awarded. 30,000/ -. ( 4. ) MR. Tomar, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant the amount awarded is just and proper. ( 5. ) MR. Milind Phadke, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the respondent No. 3 has already paid the amount awarded. Learned counsel further submits that the accident took place on 13-6-2000, while the respondent no. 1 was possessing the driving licence, which was valid upto 2-2-1999. It is submitted that after expiry of the licence the same was renewed on 23-6-2000. Learned counsel submits that in view of this on the date of accident i. e. 13-6-2000, respondent No. 1 was not possessing a valid driving licence. Learned counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances of case if any enhancement is made, then respondent No. 3 be exonerated. For this contention reliance was placed on a decision of Honble Apex Court in the matter of Ishwar Chandra vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , reported in 2007 ACJ 1067 , wherein Honble Apex court in a case where licence of the driver of offending vehicle had expired on 27-8-1994 and licence was got renewed only after 28-4-1995, i. e. the date of accident, the Honble Apex Court held that since the application was filed after 30 days from the date of expiry of the licence, therefore, licence can be renewed from the date of renewal. In the circumstances insurance company is liable to pay compensation amount to the appellant with an option to recover the amount from the driver by initiating proceedings before the Executing Court. ( 6. ) SECTION 15 deals with renewal of driving licence, which reads as under:-15. In the circumstances insurance company is liable to pay compensation amount to the appellant with an option to recover the amount from the driver by initiating proceedings before the Executing Court. ( 6. ) SECTION 15 deals with renewal of driving licence, which reads as under:-15. Renewal of driving licenses.- (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 to 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 in relation to every such case as they apply in relation to a learners licence. ( 7. ) IN the present case accident took place after expiry of the licence of respondent No. 1 and the licence has been renewed w. e. f. 23-6-2000, while the date of accident is 13-6-2000, therefore, undoubtedly respondent No. 1 was not possessing a valid driving licence on the date of accident. ( 8. ) SO far as the amount of compensation is concerned looking to the crush injuries and the fracture sustained by the appellant and also permanent disability assessed by doctors, it appears that the amount awarded is on lower side. In my opinion appellant shall be further entitled for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, which shall carry interest @ 7. 5% from the date of accident. ( 9. ) SINCE no appeal was filed by respondent No. 3 and also no cross-objections has been filed, therefore, the prayer of respondent No. 3 that a right of recovery be given to respondent No. 3 for the amount which was awarded by the learned Tribunal cannot be accepted. 5% from the date of accident. ( 9. ) SINCE no appeal was filed by respondent No. 3 and also no cross-objections has been filed, therefore, the prayer of respondent No. 3 that a right of recovery be given to respondent No. 3 for the amount which was awarded by the learned Tribunal cannot be accepted. However, since respondent No. 1 was not having valid driving licence, therefore, keeping in view the law laid down by the honble Apex Court amount shall be payable by respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 3 shall have an option to recover the amount from respondents no. 1 and 2 by initiating execution proceedings. ( 10. ) WITH the aforesaid observations the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.