1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 29.11.2008 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, in case titled Fayaz Ahmad Rather v. Maqbool Habib Tak & others, in file No.180/2006, whereby an amount of Rs.6,68,000/-- with 6% interest from the date of institution of petition till final realization came to be awarded in favour of claimant-respondent no. 1 and against the appellant-insurer (for short, the impugned award), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. Brief facts 2. Claimant-respondent no.1 while driving his Auto Rickshaw, bearing registration no-1924-JKOlE, was hit by a Maruti car, bearing registration no.JK01G-9663, being driven by its driver, respondent no.2 herein, rashly and negligently towards Nishat at General Road, Karpora on 17.10.2004 while coming from opposite side, as a result of which petitioner received grievous injuries, was hospitalized and became permanently disabled. FIR No.124/2004 came to be registered at Police Station Nishat. 3. Claimant-respondent no.1 herein claimed compensation to the tune of rupees ten lacs as per the break-up given in the claim petition. 4. Appellant-insurer and driver of the offending vehicle, respondent no.2 herein, appeared, but owner of the offending vehicle, respondent no.3 herein, had chosen to remain absent and, accordingly, exparte proceedings were drawn against him. 5. Appellant-insurer as well as driver, respondent no.2 herein, resisted the petition by the medium of objections and following issues came to be framed: 1. Whether on 17.10.2004 Maqbool Habib Taj respondent No.1 was plying the offending vehicle bearing registration No.9663-JK01G rashly and negligently as a result of which at Karpora, General Road it hit Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.1924-JK01E as a result of which petitioner and two others received grievous injuries rending him (petitioner) permanently disabled? OPP 2. Whether the respondent no.1 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle was not holding any driving license/valid Driving License on the date of the accident as such the insurance company cannot be saddled with any liability because insured has committed breach of policy stipulations? OPR-3 3. Whether petitioner was himself driving his Auto Rickshaw rashly and negligently without a valid Driving License and as such contributed towards the accident and as such the claim petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed? OPR-1, R-2 4. Whether petitioner has already received Rs.7000/- from respondents 1 & 2, if yes, what is its effect on the claim petition and quantum claimed? OPR-1, R-2 4. Whether petitioner has already received Rs.7000/- from respondents 1 & 2, if yes, what is its effect on the claim petition and quantum claimed? OPR-1 5. In case issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to from whom and in what proportion? OPP 5. Relief." 6. Claimant-respondent no.1 examined Mohammad Abbas Lone, Abdul Qayoom Wani, Dr. Muneer Farooq as witnesses in support of his claim. Claimant-respondent no.1 also appeared in the witness box. He also placed on record the relevant documents including the Permanent Disability Certificate and the Discharge Slip issued by the Government Bone & Joint Hospital, Srinagar. 7. After framing of issues, driver-respondent no.2 had chosen to remain absent and he was setexparte. Appellant-insurer examined Basharat Mushtaq Bhat, Investigator of Jehlum Investigators and Vidya Sagar, Administrative Officer of National Insurance Company in support of its case. 8. Tribunal after examining the record, scanning of evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties, passed the impugned award. Appellant-insurer has not questioned the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issues 1, 3 & 4, thus, the findings returned on these issues are upheld. Issue No. 1. 9. Claimant-respondent no. 1 led oral as well as documentary evidence to prove that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle, i.e., Maruti car, as a result of which he sustained injuries, which rendered him permanent disabled. Thus, the finding returned on issue no.1 is upheld. Issue No. 3. 10. Respondents 2 & 3 have failed to discharge onus. Even otherwise there is no evidence on the file that claimant-driver of Auto Rickshaw was anywhere negligent while driving the same, thus contributed in causing the accident. Thus, the findings returned on issue no.3 are also upheld. Issue No. 4. 11. Driver as well as owner of Maruti car have failed to prove that Rs.7000/-were paid by them to the claimant-respondent no.1. Thus, the findings returned on the said issue are also upheld. Issue No. 2. 12. Appellant-insurer by leading evidence has proved that driver of the offending vehicle, respondent no.2 herein, was not having valid license at the time of accident. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment herein. Thus, the findings returned on the said issue are also upheld. Issue No. 2. 12. Appellant-insurer by leading evidence has proved that driver of the offending vehicle, respondent no.2 herein, was not having valid license at the time of accident. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment herein. "PW Vidya Sagar, Administrative Officer National Insurance Company, has deposed that they have called the verification report of driving license No.5042/LAB from ARTO, Baramulla/Kupwara who states that the driving license has been issued in the name of Maqbool Habib Tak S/o Habibullah Tak for the period of 29th of March, 2011 till 28th of March, 2004 for driving LMV private and MPMV. The report has been exhibited as EXPR-1. The accident has taken place on 17th of October, 2004, as such; the driver was not holding an effective driving license because he had not renewed his license from 28th of March, 2004 onwards. The insured has violated the conditions of the policy, as such, the company is not liable to indemnify the insured. It was the duty of the owner of the vehicle to ensure that the driver was having the driving license in order. He has also placed a copy of the policy conditions mark R2 before this Tribunal." 13. Thus, there is ample evidence on the file that the license was not effective at the time of accident, i.e., 17.10.2004 because it was valid from 29th of March 2001 till 28th of March 2004. Thus, the appellant-insurer has proved that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective license at the time of accident. Thus, the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on issue no.2 are illegal. 14. The Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vidhyadhar Mahanwala, 2008 AIR SCW 7145; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Zaharulnisha, 2008 AIR SCW 3251 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chandra Aggarwal, 2009 AIR SCW 4801, has held that when the license is not renewed at the time of accident, then it can be safely held that the driver was not having license at the time of accident and insurer cannot be held responsible for the liability. 15. It is apt to reproduce para 11 of the judgment reported in 2008 AIR SCW 7145. "11. 15. It is apt to reproduce para 11 of the judgment reported in 2008 AIR SCW 7145. "11. In Ishwar Chandra's case (supra) the three decisions referred to by the High Court were considered and it was held that the insurance company would have no liability in the case of this nature. We are in agreement with the view. The appeal deserves to be allowed which we direct. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. It is open to the claimant to recover the amount from respondent No.2" 16. It is also apt to reproduce para 16 & 18 of the judgment reported in 2009 AIR SCW 4801. "16. In the instant case, as noted above, as per the certificate issued by the licensing authority, the driving licence of the deceased driver had expired on 25th October, 1991 i.e. four months prior to the date of accident on 29th February, 1992 and it was renewed with effect from 23rd March, 1992. It is not the case of the claimant that the driver had applied for renewal of the licence within 30 days of the date of its expiry. On the contrary, it is the specific case of the appellant that the driving licence was renewed only with effect from 23rd March, 1992. From a plain reading of Section 15 of the Act, it is clear that if an application for renewal of licence is made within 30 days of the date of its expiry, the licence continues to be effective and valid without a break as the renewal dates back to the date of its expiry. Whereas, when an application for renewal is filed after more than 30 days after the date of its expiry, proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, gets attracted and the licence is renewed only with effect from the date of its renewal, meaning thereby that in the interregnum between the date of expiry of the licence and the date of its renewal, there is no effective licence in existence. The provision is clear and admits of no ambiguity. However, the stand of the claimant before the District and State Fora as also before us was that since the deceased driver was holding a valid licence and had not been disqualified from holding an effective licence, the stipulation in the afore-extracted condition was not infringed. The provision is clear and admits of no ambiguity. However, the stand of the claimant before the District and State Fora as also before us was that since the deceased driver was holding a valid licence and had not been disqualified from holding an effective licence, the stipulation in the afore-extracted condition was not infringed. In our view, the argument is stated to be rejected. Admittedly, having failed to apply for renewal of the driving licence within 30 days from the date of its expiry in terms of Section 15 of the Act, the licence could not be renewed with effect from the date of its expiry and therefore, between the period from 26th October, 1991 to 22nd March, 1992, the deceased driver had no valid and effective driving licence as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act. We are convinced that during this period, he did not hold at all an effective driving licence, as required in the terms and conditions governing the policy on the date of accident i.e. 29th February, 1992." "18. We are fortified in our view by the decision of this Court in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra). In that case also, the driving licence of the driver, who drove the vehicle which got involved in the accident, had expired on 16th May, 1994. The accident took place more than five months thereafter i.e. on 20th October, 1994 and the driving licence was renewed only with effect from 28th October, 1996. On these facts, it was held that proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 15 applied; the driver had no licence to drive the vehicle on the date of accident; the condition in the policy identical to the one in the present case was violated and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any amount to the insured." 17. Thus, issue no.2 is to be decided in favour of appellant-insurer and against the driver as well as owner of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue no.2 are set aside and the said issue is decided in favour of appellant-insurer. Now coming to issue no.5. 18. Learned counsel for appellant-insurer while addressing the arguments has not disputed the adequacy of compensation. However, I have gone through the findings recorded. Dr. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue no.2 are set aside and the said issue is decided in favour of appellant-insurer. Now coming to issue no.5. 18. Learned counsel for appellant-insurer while addressing the arguments has not disputed the adequacy of compensation. However, I have gone through the findings recorded. Dr. Muneer Farooq has specifically deposed that the claimant was admitted in Bone & Joint Hospital, Srinagar, he suffered permanent disability to the extent of 45%, is not in a position to make hip movement as the hip joint is locked and cannot drive the vehicle forever. 19. The Tribunal after taking in view the evidence led by the parties held that the claimant-respondent no.1 was earning not less than Rs.3000/- per month and his disability has deprived him from the said income. Learned Tribunal while taking the age of claimant not more than 45 years applied multiplier of 15. 20. Keeping in view the facts of the case read with the fact that appellant-insurer has not questioned the award, the compensation awarded under the head loss of income is upheld. 21. Learned Tribunal has also rightly awarded Rs.25000/- under the head pain and suffering, Rs.3000/- on account of engagement of attendant during hospital-ization, Rs.25000/- on account of loss of amenities of life and Rs.25000/- on account of future medical expenses. 22. Tribunal has fallen in error while awarding Rs.50,000/- on account of claimant having been rendered permanent disabled. It is not warranted in law when the Tribunal has already awarded compensation on account of loss of earning that to while applying the multiplier method. 23. Tribunal has also fallen in error while awarding interest @ 6% from the date of institution of claim petition till final realization and penal interest @ 9% if the awarded amount is not deposited within one month. 24. Thus the claimant is entitled to Rs.6,18,000/- (5,40,000/- + 25000/- + 3000/-+ Rs.25000/- + 25000/-) along with 6% interest from the date of impugned award till its realization. 25. Now the question for consideration is who is to be saddled with the liability. 26. As discussed hereinabove, the driver of the offending vehicle, respondent no.2 herein, was not having effective license at the time of accident. Thus, the insurer-appellant has the right of recovery. 25. Now the question for consideration is who is to be saddled with the liability. 26. As discussed hereinabove, the driver of the offending vehicle, respondent no.2 herein, was not having effective license at the time of accident. Thus, the insurer-appellant has the right of recovery. But, at the same time, it is a third party liability and the liability of insurer is statutory one, therefore, has to satisfy the award, but with the right of recovery from the insured owner, respondent no.3 herein. 27. My this view is fortified by the latest judgment of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Zaharulnisha, 2008 AIR SCW 3251. 28. In the given circumstances, I deem it proper to saddle the appellant-insurer with the liability but with the right of recovery. It is so ordered. Accordingly, the award is modified to the extent indicated above. Appellant-insurer is at liberty to lay motion for recovery of the awarded amount. 29. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of claimant-respondent no.1 in terms of the impugned award after proper verification and identification. Court fees to be charged first. Excess amount, if any, be released in favour of appellant-insurer by way of account payee's cheque. 30. This appeal is, accordingly, disposed of along with all CMPs.