JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J. By the medium of this appeal, the appellant has questioned the award, dated 20.01.2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.74-D/II/2005/02, titled as Baldev Kumar versus Vinod Kumar and another, whereby and whereunder compensation to the tune of Rs.6,83,000/- stands awarded in favour of the claimant (respondent No.2 herein), and against the owner-appellant, with interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition, (for short, the impugned award). 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that Claimant Baldev Kumar (respondent No.2 herein) filed a Claim Petition for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.8.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the Claim Petition, on the ground that he became victim of a vehicular accident, caused by Vinod Kumar (appellant herein) while driving a three wheeler bearing registration No.HP-40-0520, rashly and negligently, on 30.8.2001, at about 9.30 a.m. near Manuni Khud. The Claimant sustained injuries in the said accident, was taken to Civil Hospital, Kangra, fromwhere was referred to Dr.R.P.M.C. Hospital, Dharamshala and thereafter to CMC, TTV Chhutani Charitable Trust, Chandigarh. It is averred in the Claim Petition that the accident rendered the Claimant jobless and not in a position to earn anything and has also spent huge amount on his treatment. 3. The insurer and the owner/driver filed objections to the Claim Petition. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the Tribunal : “1. Whether the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in the affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the terms of the policy are violated and respondent No.2 is thus not liable? OPR-2 4. Whether the petitioner was gratuitous passenger and is not covered under the insurance policy? OPR-2 5. Relief.” 5. In support of his claim, the claimant has examined as many as three witnesses, while respondent No.1 (owner-driver) has examined one witness and the insurer-respondent No.2 has examined three witnesses. 6. In regard to issue No.1, the claimant has proved that the driver (appellant herein) was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and has caused the accident. Relief.” 5. In support of his claim, the claimant has examined as many as three witnesses, while respondent No.1 (owner-driver) has examined one witness and the insurer-respondent No.2 has examined three witnesses. 6. In regard to issue No.1, the claimant has proved that the driver (appellant herein) was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and has caused the accident. Neither the owner/driver/insured nor the insurer has questioned the findings recorded by the Tribunal under issue No.1 and accordingly, the findings recorded by the Tribunal under this issue are upheld having attained finality. 7. Before issues No.2 and 3 are taken up, I deem it proper, at the first instance, to deal with issue No.4. The insurer had to prove that the Claimant was traveling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger and thus, was not covered under the insurance contract. However, the insurer has failed to lead any evidence to that effect. The Tribunal has rightly decided this issue in favour of the Claimant and against the insurer. It is apt to record herein that even the insurer has not questioned the said findings, thus, the same have attained finality and are accordingly upheld. 8. Now coming to issues No.2 and 3, I deem it proper to decide these issues together being interlinked. The Tribunal, after scanning the record and making the guess work, has come to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.6,83,000/- with interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum, which finding is not the subject matter of this appeal for the reason that neither the Claimant nor the appellant has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. The only ground pressed into service by the appellant-owner/driver is that the insurer has wrongly been exonerated/discharged from the liability. Thus, the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is upheld. 9. Now the question for consideration is - whether the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurer and directed the insured/driver to satisfy the award? The question is intricate one, needs deliberation, discussion and reasoning. I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has fallen in error in directing the appellant-owner to satisfy the award for the following reasons. 10. 9. Now the question for consideration is - whether the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurer and directed the insured/driver to satisfy the award? The question is intricate one, needs deliberation, discussion and reasoning. I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has fallen in error in directing the appellant-owner to satisfy the award for the following reasons. 10. It is the admitted case of the parties that the licence had expired on 5th June, 2000 and was renewed only on 17th October, 2001, and the accident had taken place during the interregnum on 30.8.2001. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the evidence, oral as well as documentary, available on the record of the Tribunal. Naresh Lath, SDM/Licencing Registration Authority, Nurpur, while appearing as R2W2 in the witness box, has deposed that the lincence was renewed late on 17.10.2001 and that the licence was valid upto 5.6.2000. Ext.RW-1/A is the photocopy of the driving licence, in which it is clearly mentioned that the lincence was renewed “w.e.f. 5.6.2000 to 16th day of Oct.2004." Meaning thereby that the licence was renewed from retrospective effect validating the entire period from 5.6.2000 to 17.10.2001, the date on which the licence was renewed. The Tribunal held that since the lincence was renewed on 17th October 2001, therefore, it was not valid on the date of accident i.e. on 30th August, 2001. However, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the effect of retrospective renewal and has not touched this aspect at all while making the impugned award. 11. The learned counsel for the insurer, while supporting the findings recorded by the Tribunal, has argued that on the date of accident, the lincence was not renewed which was renewed after a considerable lapse of time and not within the time frame provided under the law. Thus, it was submitted that the owner/driver was in breach of the insurance contract. 12. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the insurer has placed reliance on the decision in Ram Babu Tiwari vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Ors, 2008 AIR SCW 6512, wherein it was held that the licence was not valid in case it was not renewed on the date of its expiry and renewed from a subsequent date. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the insurer has placed reliance on the decision in Ram Babu Tiwari vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Ors, 2008 AIR SCW 6512, wherein it was held that the licence was not valid in case it was not renewed on the date of its expiry and renewed from a subsequent date. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 13 and 19 of the said decision hereunder : “13. The question as to whether the owner of a vehicle had taken care to inform himself as to whether the driver entrusted to drive the vehicle was having a licence or not is essentially a question fact. However, in this case, it stands admitted that as on the date of accident, namely, on 27.1.1996, the driver did not hold any licence. Furthermore, it is beyond dispute that he had a licence only for one year and for about 3 years thereafter, he failed and neglected to renew his licence. His licence was renewed only on and from 7.2.1996. …………… ……………. …………… 19. The principle laid down in Kusum Rai (supra) has been reiterated in Ishwar Chandra & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. [ (2007) 10 SCC 650 ], referring to sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, this Court stated the law, thus : "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 thereunder. 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."” 13. The facts of the said case and the present case are altogether different. 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."” 13. The facts of the said case and the present case are altogether different. No doubt, in the case in hand, the renewal of the license has been made after a considerable lapse of time, but, as discussed hereinabove, the renewal was made effective from the date of expiry of the licence and not from the date of making the renewal order. Therefore, the case law cited above does not help the insurer in any way. 14. Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for the mechanism how to apply for renewal of the driving licence. Section 15(4) of the said Act provides that in case application for renewal 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 the test of competence to drive. But, in the case in hand, the licence had expired only on 5.6.2000 and thus, the driver had not to undergo any driving test. 15. It is for the insurer to plead and prove that the owner has committed willful breach. There is no such evidence on the file which can be made basis for holding that the insured had committed any breach and it is not a case where the driver was not having a licence. He was having the licence, but the validity of the same had expired and was not renewed at the time of accident, though renewed thereafter with retrospective effect. 16. The Bombay High Court in the matter of Emperor vs. Ramdas Nathubhai Shah, A.I.R. (29) 1942 Bombay 216 held that no offence is committed by the driver if a license was not renewed on the date when the concerned authority has made surprise checks though it was renewed thereafter. 16. The Bombay High Court in the matter of Emperor vs. Ramdas Nathubhai Shah, A.I.R. (29) 1942 Bombay 216 held that no offence is committed by the driver if a license was not renewed on the date when the concerned authority has made surprise checks though it was renewed thereafter. It is apt to reproduce the observations made in the said decision as under : “But then reliance is placed on S. 11(3), which provides that the fee payable for the renewal of a licence shall be three rupees, if the application for renewal is made previous to, or not more than fifteen days subsequent to the date on which the licence is due to expire, and shall be five rupees in any other case, except as therein mentioned. It is argued that within the days of grace the old licence is effective, but, in my opinion, that subsection has nothing whatever to do with the effectiveness of the licence. It merely enables a licensee to obtain his licence at a lower rate, if he applies within fifteen days of the expiration of his old licence. When the accused applied on 17th February for renewing his old licence, he was entitled to get a renewal on payment of three rupees; but, in my opinion, he could not claim renewal except for one year from the date of application, and if the licence had been renewed to him from 18th February that is the next day, for a year, he would have had no answer to the charge that he had not got an effective licence on 17th February. But what the licensing authority did was to issue him a renewal up to 2nd February 1942. As the licence is effective for a year, in effect it must have been antedated to 2nd February, 1941. It seems to me, therefore, that at the time when the prosecution was launched, the accused could produce a licence which in terms was effective from 2nd February 1941, for a year, and which was effective therefore on the day on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. The only answer which Government can make to that is to dispute their own licence. The only answer which Government can make to that is to dispute their own licence. They must say that, although this licence purports to cover a year from 2nd February 1941, to 2nd February 1942, it does not really do so but covers only a period from 18th February, 1941 to 2nd February, 1942. But Government have charged the accused for a licence for one year and cannot be heard to say that they have given him something less. It seems to me that having granted a licence, which dates back to 2nd February 1941, Government are not in a position to prosecute the accused for not having an effective licence within a year from that date. On that ground the reference must be accepted, the conviction set aside and the fine, if paid, be refunded.” 17. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is stated by Naresh Lath (R2W2) that the licence was renewed on 17.10.2001 and late fee, as per Rules, was also charged. Therefore, applying the above test to the present case, it can safely be held that the renewal has made the licence effective and valid. 18. No other point was urged. 19. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed, the insurer is saddled with the liability and the impugned award is modified by providing that the insurer (respondent No.1 herein) will satisfy the impugned award within a period of six weeks from today. 20. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.