Judgment 1. The insurer has preferred this appeal in terms of CI. 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and is aggrieved by the order dated 10-9-1999, passed in Misc. Appeal No. 517 of 1998 Ram Prasad Kushwaha v. Manoj Mandal and Ors., whereby the appeal at the instance of the owner of the vehicle (respondent Nos. 1 and 3 herein) has been allowed, and the insurer has been directed to pay the amount, of compensation to the claimants (respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein) as per the direction In the judgment of the learned trial Court. 2. Respondent NO. 2 herein (Manoj Mandal) was driving tractor No. BHJ 5889 (owned by respondent Nos. 1 and 3), and, on account of his rash and negligent driving dashed against lector No. BHJ 6036 driven by Nakul Yadav, aged about 21, years, who fell down in the adjoining ditch covered with water and died on the spot. Respondent No. 5 (Anil Kumar Yadav), and respondent No. 6 (Mosmat Sanju Devi), filed the application under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 1939 Act) which was allowed, the amount of compensation was determined, and directed to be paid to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 (the claimants). It was further held therein that respondent No. 1, in the capacity of the owner of the vehicle was liable to pay the compensation. Aggrieved by the same, respondent Nos. 1 and 3 preferred the present Misc. Appeal No. 517/98, which was allowed by the impugned order, and it has been held that the insurer is liable to pay the amount of compensation, and respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have been absolved of the liability to pay. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are liable for compensation. He relies on the provision of Sections 3 and 11 of the 1933 Act. He also relies on the judgment National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai. He Further submits that Section 15(1) (proviso) of the 1988 Act, which has supplanted the 1939, Act is in pari material with Section 11 of the Act, and has been so observed in the following reported judgments: (i) Ishwar Chand v. Oriental Insurance Co. (ii) 2007 (2) PLJR 173 : AIR 2007 SC 1563 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut. 4. (ii) 2007 (2) PLJR 173 : AIR 2007 SC 1563 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut. 4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 submits that, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the insure insurer is liable to pay the compensation. He submits that respondent No. 2 was the holder of the valid licence for the period 24-6-1984 to 23-6-1987, where after it was renewed on 20-2-1988, as a result of which the renewal of licence will date back to the date of its expiry. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court Sohan Lal Pass v. P. Sesh Reddy. 5. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 did not enter appearance in spite of valid service of notice. We, therefore, appointed Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi to appear Amicus Curiae. He submits that respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are nable for compensation because it was their duty to entrust their vehicle to a driver holding valid licence. He also submits that, in view of the judgments relied on by learned Counsel for the appellant, the appellant should make payment of compensation directly to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 with the right of recovery. 6. Respondent No. 4 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) was the insurer of the vehicle driven by Late Nakul Yadav. Respondent No. 4 has not entered appearance in spite of valid service of notice. 7. We have heard and considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. It appears to us that respondent No. 2 was the holder of a valid driving licence during the period 24-6-1984 to 23-6-1987, where after no step seems to have been taken for its renewal for quite some time. The accident took place on 8-2-1998, as a result of which Nakul Yadav died on the spot. It further appears from the discussion in the two judgments that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving attributable to respondent No. 2 who was driving the offending vehicle. He was also not in possession of a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. The same was renewed on 20-2-1988. 8. The 1939 Act was in force up to the last date of June 1989, and the 1988 Act supplanted the 1939 Act and was enforced with effect from 1-7-1989. He was also not in possession of a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. The same was renewed on 20-2-1988. 8. The 1939 Act was in force up to the last date of June 1989, and the 1988 Act supplanted the 1939 Act and was enforced with effect from 1-7-1989. Learned Counsel for the parties submits in one voice that the present case is governed by the provisions of the 1939 Act. Section 3 and the relevant portion of Section 11 of the 1939 Act read as follows: 3. Necessity for driving licence.-- (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to himself authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall drive a motor vehicle as a paid employee or shall so drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. (2) A State Government may prescribe the conditions subject to which Sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instruction in driving a motor vehicle.... 11. Renewal of driving licences.--(1) Any licensing authority may, on application made to it, renew a 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. .... 9. It is thus evident on a plain reading of Section 3 of the Act that holder of a valid licence alone can drive a vehicle. It is further manifest on a plain reading of Section 11 of the Act that, in the event of expiry of a valid licence, the application may be made for renewal of the licence within a period of thirty days of its expiry, failing which the application can be made thereafter also but the licence in such a delayed case shall stand renewed with effect from the date of its renewal. Applying these provisions of law to the facts and circumstances of the present case, respondent No. 2 was not in possession of a valid licence on 8-2-1988. Respondent No. 2 was in the employment of respondent Nos. Applying these provisions of law to the facts and circumstances of the present case, respondent No. 2 was not in possession of a valid licence on 8-2-1988. Respondent No. 2 was in the employment of respondent Nos. 1 and 3, and was driving the vehicle with their consent, and also in the capacity of their agent, their owners are liable for the rash and negligent driving of respondent No, 2. We thus hold that respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are liable for the amount of compensation payable to respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed paragraph 19 of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai (supra), and is reproduced herein below for the facility of quick reference: 19. Although, thus, we are of the opinion that the appellant was not liable to pay the claimed amount as the driver was not possessing a valid licence and the High Court was in error in holding otherwise, we decline to interfere with the impugned award, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India but we direct that the appellant may recover the amount from the owner in the same manner as was directed in Nanjappan (supra). 11. We, therefore, proceed to hold that respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are liable for payment of compensation to respondent Nos. 5 and 6. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly in a situation where respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are waiting to receive the amount of compensation since February, 1988, we direct the appellant to make payment of the entire amount of compensation as per the judgment of the learned Claims Tribunal within a period of eight weeks by means of a demand draft in favour of respondent No. 5 (Anil Kumar Yadav). The remaining heirs shall not raise any objection or grievance at a later date for the payment in the name of respondent No. 5. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are hereby directed to reimburse the entire amount so paid directly to the appellant within a period of three months thereafter by an account payee demand draft. 12. This appeal is accordingly allowed in part. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.