JUDGMENT : 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Navsari in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 95 of 2008 dated 15/1/2010, by which the tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition and has directed the original opponents including the original opponent No.3 – appellant herein – Insurance Company of the vehicle involved in the accident, opponent No.3 – appellant herein has preferred the present First Appeal. 2. Facts leading to the present First Appeal in nutshell is as under : 2.1. That in the vehicular accident which took place on 13/11/2007 when the respondent No.1 herein – original claimant and his friend were going on the motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-21-N-5309 and while the original claimant was sitting as a pillion rider on the said motorcycle, at that time one Luxury was coming from the other side and therefore, his friend stopped his motorcycle by applying brake and at that time, one Eicher tempo bearing registration No.GJ-21-T-4558 came from back side and dashed with the motorcycle, as a result of which, both, the original claimant and his friend Manharbhai Sumanbhai were thrown out from the motorcycle, and as a result of which the original claimant sustained injuries and permanent partial disability. Therefore, the original claimant filed the aforesaid claim petition before the learned tribunal claiming a total sum of Rs.1,50,000 towards compensation. 2.2. The claim petition was vehemently opposed by the Insurance Company mainly on the ground that the day on which the accident took place, the driver had no valid license, as admittedly the original opponent No.1 – driver of the vehicle involved in the accident – Eicher Tempo was not possessing valid license. According to the Insurance Company, the original opponent No.1 had valid license for the period from 29/10/2004 to 28/10/2007 and thereafter for the period from 30/11/2007 to 29/11/2010. According to the Insurance Company in between the original opponent No.1 had no license and particularly on 13/11/2007 and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. 2.3. That considering sections 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act and decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. According to the Insurance Company in between the original opponent No.1 had no license and particularly on 13/11/2007 and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. 2.3. That considering sections 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act and decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., reported in 2001 ACJ 428 : (2001) 2 SCC 9 , the learned tribunal has held that the original opponent No.1 can be said to have valid license even on 13/11/2007 i.e. on the date of accident and therefore, the Insurance Company can also be held liable to pay compensation and consequently while allowing the claim petition, the learned tribunal has also directed the original opponent No.3 – appellant herein – Insurance Company liable to pay compensation to the original claimant. 2.4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal in so far as holding the appellant herein – Insurance Company liable to pay compensation, original opponent No.3 – appellant – Insurance Company has preferred the present First Appeal. 3. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal is assailed by the appellant – Insurance Company mainly on the ground that the day on which the accident took place i.e. on 13/11/2007, the original opponent No.1 was not possessing valid license as the licence had expired on 28/10/2007 which was subsequently renewed w.e.f. 30/11/2007 and in between i.e. from 29/10/2004 to 28/10/2007, the opponent No.1 was not possessing valid license. 3.1. Mr.Sunil Parikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company has vehemently submitted that admittedly the license of the original opponent No.1 had expired on 28/10/2007 which came to be renewed w.e.f. 30/11/2007. It is submitted that the accident occurred in between i.e. on 13/11/2007 and the original opponent No.1 did not make application for renewal of the license within a period of one month from 28/10/2008 and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. It is submitted that if the original opponent No.1 would have submitted application for renewal of the license within a period of 30 days after the date of expiry of the driving license, considering section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the driving license could have been renewed from the date of expiry of the license. It is submitted that if the original opponent No.1 would have submitted application for renewal of the license within a period of 30 days after the date of expiry of the driving license, considering section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the driving license could have been renewed from the date of expiry of the license. 3.2. Relying upon the proviso to section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is vehemently submitted by Mr.Sunil Parikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - Insurance Company that if application for renewal of the license is made after 15 days after the date of expiry of the license, the license shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal. It is submitted that in the present case, license has been renewed w.e.f. 30/11/2007. It is submitted that therefore, when on 13/11/2007 i.e. the day on which the accident took place the original opponent No.1 was not possessing valid licence, the learned tribunal has erred in holding the appellant Insurance Company liable to pay compensation. 3.3. In support of his above submission, Mr.Parikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Babu Tiwari Versus United India Insurance Company Limited and others, reported in 2008 ACJ 2654 : (2008) 8 SCC 165 , and para 77 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Swaran Singh and others, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 . It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Swaran Singh (supra) in para 77 has specifically observed and held that if the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident does not possess license, Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. By making above submissions and relying upon above decision, it is requested to allow the present appeal. 4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Mr.Hiren Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident and Mr.V.K. Bhatiya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant. It is vehemently submitted that considering proviso to section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it can be said that the original opponent No.1 was possessing valid license on the date on which the accident took place i.e. on 13/11/2007. It is vehemently submitted that considering proviso to section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it can be said that the original opponent No.1 was possessing valid license on the date on which the accident took place i.e. on 13/11/2007. It is submitted that proviso to section 14 clearly provides that license remains valid for a period of 30 days from the date of its expiry. It is submitted that therefore, no error has been committed by the learned tribunal in holding the appellant – Insurance Company also liable to pay compensation to the original claimant. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respondents herein have heavily relied upon para 44 to 46 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh (supra). By making above submissions and relying upon above decision, it is requested to dismiss the present appeal. 5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 5.1. Short but interesting question of law posed for consideration of this Court in the present case is, if the accident had taken place within one month from the date of expiry of the license of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident and the license has been renewed subsequently, still the Insurance Company can be held liable to pay compensation? 5.2. In the present case, the original opponent No.1 – driver of the Eicher Tempo involved in the accident was having driving license which was valid for the period from 29/10/2004 to 28/10/2007 and thereafter for the period from 30/11/2007 to 29/11/2010. The accident had occurred on 13/11/2007. The license came to be renewed w.e.f. 30/11/2007. Thus, the accident occurred within 30 days from the date of expiry of the license i.e. in the present case on 13/11/2007. 5.3. It is the case on behalf of the appellant - Insurance Company that as the original opponent No.1 was not having valid license on 13/11/2007 i.e. the day on which the accident took place and the license came to be renewed subsequently w.e.f. 30/11/2007, Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. 5.4. The aforesaid submission seems to be impressive but has no substance and cannot be accepted in view of provisions of sections 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Sections 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act read as under :- “Section 14. 5.4. The aforesaid submission seems to be impressive but has no substance and cannot be accepted in view of provisions of sections 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Sections 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act read as under :- “Section 14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles.- (1) A learner's licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be effective for a period of six months from the date of issue of the licence. (2) A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall.- (a) in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years : Provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of one year and renewal thereof shall be subject to the condition that the driver undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus; and (b) in the case of any other licence,- (i) if the person obtaining the licence, either originally or on renewal thereof, has not attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or, as the case may be, renewal thereof,- (A) be effective for a period of twenty years from the date of such issue or renewal; or (B) until the date on which such person attains the age of fifty years, whichever is earlier; (ii) if the person referred to in sub-clause (i), has attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or as the case may be, renewal, thereof, be effective, on payment of such fee as may be prescribed, for a period of five years from the date of such issue or renewal: Provided that every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry; Section 15. Renewal of driving licence. Renewal of driving licence. (1) Any licensing authority may on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry : Provided that, in any case where the application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal; Provided further that, where the application is for the renewal of a licence to drive a transport vehicle or where in any other case the applicant has attained the age of forty years, the same shall be accompanied by a medical certificate in the same form and in the same manner as is referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8 and the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 8 shall so as far as may be, apply in relation to every such case as they apply in relation to a leaner’s licence” Proviso appended to section 14 in unequivocal terms states that the license remains valid for a period of 30 days from the date of its expiry. Section 15 provides that any licensing authority, may, on an application made to it, renew a driving license under the provisions of the Act with effect from the date of its expiry; provided that where application for renewal of the license is made more than thirty days after the date of expiry, the driving license shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal. That would not become proviso appended to section appended to section 14 nugatory. 5.5. In the case of Swaran Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 41 to 46 while interpreting and considering sections 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has observed as under : “41. However, Clause (a) opens with the words "that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy", implying that the insurer's defence of the action would depend upon the terms of the policy. The said sub-clause contains three conditions of disjunctive character, namely, the insurer can get away from the liability when (a) a named person drives the vehicle; (b) it was being driven by a person who did not have a duly granted licence; and (c) driver is a person disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence. 42. The said sub-clause contains three conditions of disjunctive character, namely, the insurer can get away from the liability when (a) a named person drives the vehicle; (b) it was being driven by a person who did not have a duly granted licence; and (c) driver is a person disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence. 42. We may also take note of the fact that whereas in Section 3 the words used are 'effective licence', it has been differently worded in Section 149(2) i.e. 'duly licensed'. If a person does not hold an effective licence as on the date of the accident, he may be liable for prosecution in terms of Section 141 of the Act but Section 149 pertains to insurance as regard third party risks. 43. A provision of a statute which is penal in nature vis-a-vis a provision which is beneficent to a third party must be interpreted differently. It is also well known that the provisions contained in different expressions are ordinarily construed differently. 44. The words 'effective licence' used in Section 3, therefore, in our opinion cannot be imported for subsection (2) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. We must also notice that the words 'duly licensed' used in sub-section (2) of Section 149 are used in past tense. 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 test or without having been declared unqualified therefor. Proviso appended to Section 14 in unequivocal term 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 meantime the 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.” 5.6. Under the circumstances and considering the proviso appended to section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it cannot be said that in the present case the original opponent No.1 was not possessing valid license on the date of accident i.e. on 13/11/2007, as considering the proviso appended to section 14, license remains valid for 30 days from the date of its expiry and in the present case, the accident has occurred within 30 days from the date of expiry of the license. It would have been a different case if accident had occurred after 30 days from the date of expiry of the license and no application for license was submitted within 30 days from the date of expiry of the license and consequently the license is subsequently renewed which naturally would be after 30 days from the date of its expiry i.e. considering section 15 of the Act, it would be renewal w.e.f. The date of its renewal. 5.7. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in canena of decisions, beneficial statute must receive a liberal interpretation. It cannot be disputed that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial statute and therefore, it must receive a liberal interpretation in favour of the claimant. Therefore also on conjoint reading of sections 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act and it should be held that if the accident had occurred within 30 days from the date of expiry of the license and the license is subsequently renewed and even if the license is subsequently renewed after 30 days from the date of its expiry, it can be said that the license remains valid for 30 days from the date of its expiry and therefore, the Insurance Company can he held liable to pay compensation. 5.8. Now, so far as reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Babu Tiwari (supra), is concerned, on facts, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, no error has been committed by the learned tribunal in holding the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, no error has been committed by the learned tribunal in holding the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation. Under the circumstances, present appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.