Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. This appeal, preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company (herein referred as the appellant) is directed against the award dated 17.10.2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Hisar (herein referred as the Tribunal), awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,63,056/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum in favour of respondent No. 1 petitioner (herein referred as respondent No. 1) and against the appellant, on account of the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident. 2. Factual background of the case is that on 03.06.2003, respondent No. 1 Raj Kumar went to meet his elder brother Shri Ram Bachan, residing at Ward No. 1 in Tosham. On the same day, in the evening at about 6:00 p.m. he had gone to Bus-Stand Market, Tosham for purchasing vegetables, when he reached near STD shop of Mahender Singh in Hansi Chowk then respondent No. 2 while driving the jeep bearing registration No. HR 16A-0490 rashly and negligently came from Hisar side and hit respondent No. 1. Resultantly, he fell down. Ram Bachan and other passers by including Pappu and Raghu Ram came and took respondent No. 1 to Chawla Nursing Home, Hisar and got him admitted. Respondent No. 2 fled away from the spot. Respondent No. 1 remained admitted in the hospital up to 16.06.2003 and as an outdoor patient spent about Rs. 1,00,000/- on his treatment. Consequently, respondent No. 1 filed the claim petition. 3. Upon notice, the claim petition was contested on the grounds that the claim petition was false, frivolous and vexatious. Respondent No. 1 had no locus standi and cause of action to file the claim petition. The accident had been caused by respondent No. 1 himself. It was also pleaded that the vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited. Respondent No. 3 owner of the offending vehicle also took the similar pleas. 4. From pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal vide order dated 13.05.2005 framed the following issues :- 1. Whether Raj Kumar petitioner suffered injuries at the hands of Raj Kumar driver of the vehicle No. HR-17-A-0490 as a result of his rash and negligent driving ? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the petition ? OPR 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form ? OPR 4. OPP 2. Whether the petitioner has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the petition ? OPR 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form ? OPR 4. Whether the petitioner is estopped by his act and conduct to file the petition ? OPR 5. Whether respondent No. 1 was neither the driver or was having a driving licence, nor was under the employment of the insured at the time of alleged accident ? OPR 6. Relief. 5. Both the parties led evidence. Ultimately, the claim petition was accepted and the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,63,056/- along with interest @ 9% per annum has been awarded in favour of respondent No. 1. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant Insurance Company has come up in appeal. 7. The sole argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that respondent No. 2 driver was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and issue No. 5 has not been correctly decided by the Tribunal. 8. Having heard this contention, it is noticed that the accident in this case took place on 03.06.2003. Driving licence Ex. Rl was found to be valid from 14.05.1999 to 13.05.2002. Thereafter it was renewed upto January 2004 and ultimately it was renewed from 02.01.2004 to 01.01.2007. Thus, admittedly the driving licence was not valid on the date of accident. Notwithstanding the fact that the driving licence was valid for light transport vehicle and the offending jeep which the respondent No. 1 was driving, was a light transport vehicle yet the fact is that respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The Apex Court has stressed much for discouraging the awarding compensation and fastening the liability of the company on the basis of driving licence which was not renewed and validity had expired. 9. The Apex Court has stressed much for discouraging the awarding compensation and fastening the liability of the company on the basis of driving licence which was not renewed and validity had expired. 9. I find support from my this view from the judgment delivered in case National Insurance Company v. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala and others, 2008(4) RCR(Civil) 485 : 2008(5) R.A.J. 535 : 2009(1) AICJ 1 : 2008 (4) PLR 746 wherein it was observed as under :- "In support of the appeal, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Ishwar Chandra and others v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2007(2) RCR(Civil) 370 : 2007(2) R.A.J. 357:2007 (10) SCC 650, it was contended that the High Court s view is unsustainable. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 the owner of the vehicle on the other hand supported the judgment of MACT. In Swaran Singhs case (supra) whereupon the respondent No. 2 relied, it was held as follows :- "45 Thus, a person whose licence is ordinarily renewed in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder, 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 therefor. Proviso appended to Section 14 in equivocal terms states that the licence remains valid for a period of thirty days from the day of its expiry. 46. Section 15 of the Act does not empower the authorities to reject an application for renewal only on the found that there is a break in validity or tenure of the driving licence has lapsed, as in the meantime the provisions for disqualification of the driver contained in Sections 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 will not be attracted, would indisputably confer a right upon the person to get his driving licence renewed. In that view of the matter, he cannot be said to be delicenced and the same shall remain valid for a period of thirty days after its expiry." In Kusum Rais Case (supra) it was held as follows :- 14. In that view of the matter, he cannot be said to be delicenced and the same shall remain valid for a period of thirty days after its expiry." In Kusum Rais Case (supra) it was held as follows :- 14. This Court in Swaran Singh 2004 (3) SCC 297 clearly laid down that the liability of the Insurance Company vis-a-vis the owner would depend upon several factors. The owner would be Habile for payment of compensation in a case where the driver was not having a licence at all. It was the obligation on the part of the owner to take adequate care to see that the driver had an appropriate licence to drive the vehicle. The question as regards the liability of the owner vis-a-vis the driver being not possessed of a valid licence was considered in Swaran Singh stating: (SCC pp. 336-3 7, para 89) " 10. Undisputedly, the driving licence was not got renewed within 30 days and on expiry of the said 30 days, the respondent No. 2 could not be said to be holding a valid driving licence. The Tribunal while elaborating the issue with regard to driving licence observed that driving licence was renewed much after 7 months of the accident, thus, both the respondents i.e. respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (driver and owner) were liabile jointly and severally to pay the compensation. But in the operative part of the award, the Tribunal did not make mention with regard to liability of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 only but fastened the liability upon the insurance company also. The Tribunal should have given right of recovery to the Company from respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. 11. Findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are modified accordingly. 12. Resultantly, I partly accept this appeal and set aide the impugned order to the extent that the appellant would pay the compensation amount. However, it would be at liberty to recover the same from respondent No. 2 and 3 jointly and severally.