Judgment Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This appeal at the instance of the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle is directed against the award dated 12th October, 2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Yamunagar, whereby a sum of rs.75,000.00 with interest at the rate of 7.5% p. a. from the date of petition till its realization has been awarded as compensation to the claimant, Tripurari Saran Tripathi for the injuries received by him. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 14th September, 2004 at about 4:30 p. m. The claimant, Tripurari Saran Tripathi along with Pankaj and Rak Kumar was going to GMG Plywood, Yamunanagar by a motorcycle where he was working as a supervisor and getting salary at the rate of rs.6,000.00 p. m. When they reached near shadipur canal in front of the Canal Colony, yamunanagar a bus bearing No. HR-37-2009 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, Jaswinder Singh, came from behind and h it the motorcycle of the claimant. Owing to the impact of accident, the claimant suffered multiple injuries including grievous ones and for the treatment, he had to remain admitted in the hospital for 23 days. 3. The Tribunal accepted the claimants plea and held that Tripurari Saran Tripathi received injuries in the accident, which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. HR-37-2009 by its driver, Jaswinder singh. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal on the basis of evidence led by the claimant, awarded rs.54,669/- on account of medical bills and rs.20,000.00 on account of pain and sufferings, special diet, etc. totalling Rs.74,669/- (rounded off as Rs.75,000.00 ). 4. I have heard the Counsel for the appellants and have perused the impugned award passed by the Tribunal 5. Learned Counsel forthe appellants has submitted that the liability to pay the compensation has been fastened on them primarily on the ground that the licence of the driver of the offending vehicle had not been renewed on the date of accident and the driver was, therefore, not duly licensed to drive the vehicle. Learned Counsel forthe appellants has submitted that the liability to pay the compensation has been fastened on them primarily on the ground that the licence of the driver of the offending vehicle had not been renewed on the date of accident and the driver was, therefore, not duly licensed to drive the vehicle. The learned Counsel fur the rcontended that non-effectiveness of licence would not permit that a driver be treated as not duly licensed under Sec.149 (2) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity the Act)because a driver once licensed continued to possess the ability to drive the vehicle unless it is proved that he has incurred any physical disability to drive. I n support of his submissions, learned Counsel forthe appellants has placed reliance upon Apex Court judgment in National insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Swaran Singh of this court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Mohinder Singh and others, and Zile Singh V/s. Mukesh Kumar and others, of Jammu and kashmir High Court in New India Assurance co. Ltd. V/s. Sughra Bibi and others, and rajasthan High Court in Radhey Syam and others V/s. Raja Ram and others, and Madhya pradesh High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Shailendra Singh and others. 6. It is not in dispute that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle had expired on 14th July, 2004 whereas the accident had taken place on 14th September, 2004 and the driving licence was renewed on 24th september, 2004. Ltd. V/s. Shailendra Singh and others. 6. It is not in dispute that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle had expired on 14th July, 2004 whereas the accident had taken place on 14th September, 2004 and the driving licence was renewed on 24th september, 2004. Before dealing with the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant, it is desirable to refer the statutory provisions on the subject, i. e. , Sec.15 (1)of the Act, which reads thus: "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 forthe 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 forthe 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 sec. 8, and the provisions of sub-section (4) of Sec.8 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to every such case as they apply in relation to a learners licence. " 7. This Court in F. A. O. No.4247 of 2007, m/s. India Road Lines V/s. Ruldu Ram and others, decided on 5th March, 2003 held as under: "according to the provisions of sec. 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 sec. 15 (1) of the Act provides that where the application for renewal is made more than 30 days after the date of the 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. " 8. 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. " 8. 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 thedriving licence of the driverof the offending vehicle was valid from 25th July 2001 to 24th july, 2004 and was renewed from 24th september, 2004 to 24th July, 2007. It was further observed that the licence was got renewed with effect from 24th September, 2004 when an application for renewal of the same was filed on the date following the date of the accident. On the basis of this, the tribunal concluded that the driver was not having valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. Learned Counsel for the appellants could not show from record or otherwise, that the said finding was patently wrong and illegal and was legally not sustainable. 9. Similar issue arose before the Apex court in Ishwar Chandra and others V/s. Oriental insurance Co. Ltd and offers, wherein the driver of the offending vehicle had not submitted an application for renewal of his licence to the licensing authority within 30 days of expiry of the validity of the driving licence, the Apex court while interpreting Sec.15 of the Act and considering its earlier judgment in Swaran singhs case (supra) held that the original licence granted despite expiry remains valid for a period of 30 days from the date of expiry and, if any application is filed for renewal thereafter, the same would be renewed from the date of its renewal. It further held that where no renewal application had been filed within 30 days, the driver did not have a valid driving licence on the date of accident and giving recovery rights to the Insurance company from the owner and the driver of the vehicle was justified. It further held that where no renewal application had been filed within 30 days, the driver did not have a valid driving licence on the date of accident and giving recovery rights to the Insurance company from the owner and the driver of the vehicle was justified. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in Ishwar Chandras case (supra), the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants do not come to the rescue of the appellants. The tribunal has rightly held the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle liable to pay the amount of compensation jointly and severally. No other point was urged before me. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.