JUDGMENT Mr. Ajay Tewari, J. (Oral): - This appeal has been filed by the owner against the award of the Tribunal granting recovery rights to the insurance company. 2. Brief facts are that on 11.6.2004 the deceased and her brother were going on a scooter from Hoshiarpur-Tanda road to Bunga. When they reached near Hariana, the offending vehicle which was being driven rashly and negligently by the appellant struck against the scooter and the driver of the scooter died. 3. While deciding the claim petition the Tribunal found that the licence of the appellant had expired one year prior to the date of the accident. Consequently the Tribunal directed the insurance company to first pay the compensation amount and to thereafter recover it from the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has firstly sought to argue that the accident was not proved because in the FIR it has been mentioned that the offending vehicle was a Qualis while the vehicle of the appellant was a Tata Safari. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents have argued that originally just after the accident in the FIR it was mentioned that the vehicle was a Qualis but thereafter subsequently statement was recorded in which it was correctly mentioned that the vehicle was a Safari. Further they have asserted that the driver of the appellant himself admitted the accident. 6. I have gone through the record of the case with the assistance of learned counsel and after going through the oral testimony of PW1 and PW2 I am satisfied that the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the appellant is not liable to be interfered with. I consequently reject this argument. 7. The second argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that no doubt the licence stood expired on the date of the accident but he was not disqualified from holding a licence and the insurance company could not escape its liability. In this regard he has placed reliance on M/s National Insurance Company Limited v. Omn Parkash and others reported as 2010(3) PLR 752 . 8. In this regard he has placed reliance on M/s National Insurance Company Limited v. Omn Parkash and others reported as 2010(3) PLR 752 . 8. Learned counsel for the insurance company has, however, relied upon New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Suresh Chandra Aggarwal, [2009(4) Law Herald (SC) 2465] : reported as 2009(3) RCR(civil) 500 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if an application for renewal of driving licence is made within 30 days of its expiry the licence continues to be effective but if it is renewed after 30 days of its expiry, then the driver is deemed to be without a valid and effective driving licence. 9. The judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court binds me and I reject this argument also. 10. Appeal is dismissed. 11. The Court places on record the appreciation for the labour put in by Mr.Karminder Singh as amicus curiae to represent the claimants/respondents No. 1 and 2. —————————