ORDER Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant on admission. 2. In an accident involving Truck No. CG 07 C/1236 deceased Chaman Lal Sahu received fatal injury and succumb to death. The claimants are the parents and brother of the deceased. 3. In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act challenging the award of compensation of Rs. 2,83,000/-, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the accident had taken place on 4.9.2008, whereas the validity of the driving license expired on 11.8.2008, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner even if the license was subsequently renewed on 18.9.2008. 4. The provision regarding renewal of driving license is contained under Section 15 of the Motor Vehicle Act which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: 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 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 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 learner's licence. (2) An application for the renewal of a driving licence shall be made in such form and accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (3) Where an application for the renewal of a driving licence is made previous to, or not more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the fee payable for such renewal shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government in this behalf. (3) Where an application for the renewal of a driving licence is made previous to, or not more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the fee payable for such renewal shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government in this behalf. (4) Where an application for the renewal of a driving licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the fee payable for such renewal shall be such amount as may be prescribed by the Central Government: Provided that the fee referred to in Sub-section (3) may be accepted by the Licensing Authority in respect of an application for the renewal of a driving licence is made under this Sub-section if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from applying within the time specified in Sub-section (3): Provided further that if the application is made more than five years after the driving licence has ceased to be effective, the Licensing Authority may refuse to renew the driving licence, unless the applicant undergoes and passes to its satisfaction the test of competence to drive referred to in Sub-section (3) of Section 9. (5) Where the application for renewal has been rejected, the fee paid shall be refunded to such extent and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (6) Where the authority renewing the driving licence is not the authority which issued the driving licence it shall intimate the fact of renewal to the authority which issued the driving licence. 5. In the matter of Ram Babu Tiwari v. United Insurance Co. Limited and Ors., reported in (2008) 8 SCC 165 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after relying on two of its earlier decisions in the matter ofNational Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai and Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 250 and Ishwar Chandra and Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2007) 10 SCC 650 , has held thus in Para 20: 20. The principle laid down in Kusum Rai (supra), has been reiterated in Ishwar Chandra (supra). Referring to Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, this Court stated the law, thus: (SCC p. 652, Para 9) 9. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2007) 10 SCC 650 , has held thus in Para 20: 20. The principle laid down in Kusum Rai (supra), has been reiterated in Ishwar Chandra (supra). Referring to Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, this Court stated the law, thus: (SCC p. 652, Para 9) 9. From a bare perusal of the said provision, it would appear that the licence is renewed in terms of the said Act and the rules framed there under. The proviso appended to Section 15(1) of the Act in no uncertain terms states that whereas the original licence granted despite expiry remains valid for a period of 30 days from the date of expiry, if any application for renewal thereof is filed thereafter, the same would be renewed from the date of its renewal. The accident took place 28.4.1995. As on the said date, the renewal application had not been filed, the driver did not have a valid licence on the date when the vehicle met with the accident. (Emphasis supplied) 6. In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Ram Babu Tiwari (supra), it is found that in the present case the accident has taken place within 30 days from the date of expiry, it means the licence was within the grace period of 30 days and as such deserve to be treated as valid under the provision contained in Section 15 as interpreted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Babu Tiwari (supra). This Court, therefore, finds no substance in the arguments raised by learned Counsel for the Appellant that Insurance Company was not liable to pay the amount of compensation. 7. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has thereafter argued that in any case amount of compensation granted in favor of the Appellant is on higher side. From the order passed by the Claims Tribunal on 4.9.2009, it is reflect that the application preferred by the Insurance Company under Section 170 of Motor Vehicle Act was not allowed. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mastan and Anr., reported in (2006) 2 SCC 641 , it is not permissible for Insurance Company to raise an argument regarding the quantum, of compensation being excessive. 8. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mastan and Anr., reported in (2006) 2 SCC 641 , it is not permissible for Insurance Company to raise an argument regarding the quantum, of compensation being excessive. 8. In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground for entertaining this appeal which fails and is hereby dismissed.