Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J.— 1. Challenge in this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') is an award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge Court No.2 Barabanki (in short 'MACT) in Claim Case No.261 of 2004. By the said award, a sum of Rs.5,78,000/- was awarded to the claimants-respondents No.1 and 3 . In the appeal the dispute related to the rejection of appellant's claim for exoneration on the ground of violation of policy condition. It was pointed out that the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was not in force on the date of accident. 2. Factual position in detail need not be indicated because the issue relates to the liability of the insurance company as the driving license was not valid on the date of the accident. 3. In the instant case the date of accident was 30-5-2004. The driver's license was initially valid for the period from 25-3.2000 to 24.3.2003 and thereafter from 4-6-2004 to 3.6.2007. The appellant filed its objections before MACT taking the stand that since the driving license was not valid on the date of accident it had no liability. The MACT turned down the plea. According to it though on the date of accident the driving license was not valid, since the driver's license was renewed on 4-6-2004 for a further period of three years it cannot be said that during the intervening period the driver was incompetent or disqualified to drive the truck. It was held that merely there was a gap in the renewal of driving license that cannot be a ground for exoneration. The relevant finding recorded by the tribunal is reproduced herein below:- "There is evidence of D.W.1 that on the basis of driving licence record, the driver Nijamuddin had no valid driving licence on 30.5.2004 i.e., the date of accident. It transpires from record that the licence was valied from 25.3.2000 to 24.3.2003. Thereafter, it was revalidated for the period starting from 4.6.2004 to 3.6.2007. In the interregnum, the licence was not valid. There is no evidence to controvert this fact. It could not be disproved that the driver of vehicle No.32/AN-3465 had no valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident. Thereafter, it was revalidated for the period starting from 4.6.2004 to 3.6.2007. In the interregnum, the licence was not valid. There is no evidence to controvert this fact. It could not be disproved that the driver of vehicle No.32/AN-3465 had no valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident. The photocopies of driving licence (Ga-33) and investigation report dated 19.11.2007 are on record which lead to inference that thedriver Nijamuddin was a duly licenced driver; even though for a brief period in which the accident occured,his licence was not valied." 4. In support of the appeal, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 and Ishwar Chandra and Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. (2007) (10) SCC 650), it was contended that the tribunals view is unsustainable. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and 3 the claimants on the other hand supported the judgment of MACT and relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd v.Kusum Rai and others, (2006) 4 SCC 250 . 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and of claimants, respondents. No body put its appearance on behalf of respondent No.4 and 5 despite sufficient service. The owner and driver also did not contest the claim petition before the Tribunal. 7. In National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 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 testorwithout having been declared unqualified therefore. Proviso appended to Section 14 in unequivocal terms states that the licence remains valid for a period of thirty days from the day of its expiry. 46. Proviso appended to Section 14 in unequivocal 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 ground that there is a break in validity or tenure of the driving licence has lapsed, as in the meantimethe 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 delicensed and the same shall remain valid for a period of thirty days after its expiry." 8. In National Insurance Co. Ltd v.Kusum Rai and others, (2006) 4 SCC 250 it was held as follows : "14. This Court in Swaran Singh's case (supra) clearly laid down that the liability of the Insurance Company vis-a-vis the owner would depend upon several factors. The owner would be liable 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. 336-37, para 89) : "89. Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables the Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub- section (2) of the said section. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are : (a) motorcycle without gear, (b) motorcycle with gear, (c) invalid carriage, (d) light motor vehicle, (e) transport vehicle, (f) road roller, and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. The definition clause in Section 2 ofthe Act defines various categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 10. The definition clause in Section 2 ofthe Act defines various categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 10. They are 'goods carriage', 'heavy goods vehicle', 'heavy passenger motor vehicle', 'invalid carriage', 'light motor vehicle', 'maxi-cab', 'medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger motor vehicle', 'motor-cab', 'motorcycle', 'omnibus', 'private service vehicle', 'semi-trailer', 'tourist vehicle', 'tractor', 'trailer' and 'transport vehicle'. In claims for compensation for accidents, various kinds of breaches with regard to the conditions of driving licences arise for consideration before the Tribunal as a person possessing a driving licence for 'motorcycle without gear', [sic may be driving a vehicle] for which he has no licence. Cases may also arise where a holder of driving licence for 'light motor vehicle' is found to be driving a 'maxicab', 'motor-cab' or 'omnibus' for which he has no licence. In each case, on evidence led before the Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that the accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with the driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence." 9. In Ishwar Chandra's case (supra) the two decisions referred herein above were considered and it was held that the insurance company would have no liability in the case of this nature. 10. It is not in dispute that the deceased of this case was a third party as held in 2012(30) LCD 2654 All (D.B.), National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Gita Mishra and others. In this case it has been held:- "58. In view of different orders passed by Apex Court is similar facts and circumstances we thought that correct legal proposition of law should be propounded in the light of provisions of M.V.Act 1988 and of decisions of Apex Court alone. 59. Ltd Vs. Gita Mishra and others. In this case it has been held:- "58. In view of different orders passed by Apex Court is similar facts and circumstances we thought that correct legal proposition of law should be propounded in the light of provisions of M.V.Act 1988 and of decisions of Apex Court alone. 59. On the basis of the provisions contained in Chapter XI and XII of M.V.Act 1988 and the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court it is held that where the owner of the vehicle has taken the compulsory statutory policy of Insurance of vehicle, called as 'Act Policy' following consequences shall follow in motor accident claims for payment of compensation to the victims/claimants of motor vehicle accident; In cases of 'third party risk' the insurance company would be liable to indemnify the losses of the owner of vehicle and would be liable to pay the determined compensation to the victims/claimants. In case of 'third party risk' if Insurance Company succeed in establishing the breach of terms of insurance policy in the light of section 149(2) of M.V.Act1988, though insurance company would not be liable to indemnify the losses of owner of the vehicle but concerned insurance company would pay the determined compensation to the claimants with a right to recover from the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident to the extent, the amount paid with interest to the claimants. The gratuitous passengers ( except owner of goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle along with goods) in goods vehicle/carriage could not be permitted to travel. They being victim or in case of death their heirs could claim compensation from the owner of the vehicle in which they are trevelling and not from the insurance company of the concern vehicle. The insurance company would not be liable to indemnify the amount of compensation paid by the owner. In such situation the insurance company could not be saddled with any liability including the liabilities to pay compensation to victim/claimants with right to recover from owner of the vehicle. The insurance company would not be liable to indemnify the amount of compensation paid by the owner. In such situation the insurance company could not be saddled with any liability including the liabilities to pay compensation to victim/claimants with right to recover from owner of the vehicle. The direction given by Apex Court in some of its authorities to insurance companies to pay the amount of compensation to the victims/claimants in cases other than those covered under 'third party risk', with intent to do complete justice between the parties in any cause or matter pending before the Supreme Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction vested under Article 142 of the Constitution of India would be binding in between the parties of that cause or matter but can not be taken as binding precedent in other matters." 11. In view of the above the impugned award is liable to be set a side to the extent wherein it was held that the driver of offending truck was duly licenced consequently the Appellant Insurance Company was held responsible and liable to pay the compensation. 12. However in view of Gita Mishra's case (supra) the Appellant Insurance Company shall pay the amount of compensation to the claimants- respondents under the award of the Tribunal but would be entitled to to get it recovered from the owner of truck,Sri Kamlesk Kumar respondent No.4, by moving the application before the Tribunal after making payment of compensation and Tribunal shall recover the amount from the owner in terms of section 174 of the Act. 13.The appellant is directed to deposit the entire amount under the award before the Tribunal within one month from the date of this order if yet not deposited . The amount deposited in this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal forthwith. The amount already in deposited shall be adjusted in amount payable by the appellant. The amount so deposited shall be paid to the claimants-respondents in terms of award. 14. Thus, appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to cost. 15. The Registrar shall ensure the compliance of this order. _____________