JUDGMENT Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J.: - The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the award dated 5.9.2006, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (for short ‘the Tribunal’), impugning that the Ld. Tribunal erroneously fastened the liability upon the appellant to pay the compensation. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant raised two fold arguments. He refers to the statement of RW1 Sham Lal, Clerk, DTO, Jalandhar and states that the driver Gopal Krishan was having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. He states that it has specifically come in the evidence of this witness that the driving licence (of driver Gopal Krishan) which was initially issued on 22.5.2001 was valid till 21.5.2004 and was subsequently renewed on 23.8.2004, with effect from 22.5.2004, after recovering the penalty from driver Gopal Krishan. The said licence was valid from 22.5.2004 to 22.8.2007. The accident occurred on 20.8.2004. 3. His second argument is that though the driver Gopal Krishan had applied for renewal of the driving licence and he was not debarred from driving the vehicle, therefore, he be deemed to have been in possession of valid driving licence. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on Ram Phal v. Krishna Makkar and Others, 1989 ACJ 1126. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company submits that the driver deposited the fee for renewal of the driving licence on 23.8.2004; the accident in the instant case occurred on 20.8.2004, therefore, on the date of the accident, neither the driver was having a valid driving licence nor he has moved any application for renewal of the same. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the file. 5. Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that if the application for renewal of the driving licence is made within 30 days of its expiry, it shall be renewed from the date of its expiry and if application for renewal is made after 30 days and before five years of its expiry, it shall be renewed from the date of such renewal. 6. Admittedly, the driver was holding a licence which was valid from 22.5.2001 to 21.5.2004. The licence was got renewed on 23.8.2004, and it was valid upto 22.8.2007. 6. Admittedly, the driver was holding a licence which was valid from 22.5.2001 to 21.5.2004. The licence was got renewed on 23.8.2004, and it was valid upto 22.8.2007. As per report of the Surveyor Ex.P5, the fee for renewal of the driving licence was deposited on 23.8.2004, on the date of submission of the application for renewal. 7. The licence was renewed against the rules from the back date. This Court does not take its renewal from 22.5.2004, but the licence is deemed to be renewed from 23.8.2007 on the date of submission of the application and deposit of renewal fee. It is held that on the date of accident i.e. 20.8.2004, the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence. 8. In view of the above, it can safely be inferred that on the date of the accident, the driver did not hold any valid and effective driving licence. Infact, after the accident took place, he manipulated to get the licence renewed with the connivance of the officials of the Renewal Authority against the rules. The testimony of RW1 Sham Lal, Clerk, DTO, Jalandhar cannot be relied upon, who did not depose as per the record, but made evasive replies and did not clarify the aspect of the matter. The impugned award does not call for any interference. Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed. 9. The State is free to initiate proceedings for dereliction of duty for making an effort to help the driver, against Sham Lal Clerk, DTO Office Jalandhar or any other person, who renewed the licence from back date against the rules. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the State of Punjab for necessary action. 11. The statutory amount, if deposited with this appeal, be sent to the Tribunal for disbursement. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————