JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. 1. M.A.C.A. No. 1907/2013 is an appeal filed by the original 1st respondent in O.P. (MV) No. 1828/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam, challenging the award dated 31.01.2013 whereby recovery right was granted in favour of the insurance company, the original 3rd respondent, on the finding that the 2nd respondent in the original petition, the driver of the motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KL-4/U6832, was not having valid driving licence at the relevant time of accident. In this case insurance company and other parties to the original petition were arrayed as respondents. 2. O.P. (MAC) No. 3799/2013 is an original petition filed by the appellant in M.A.C.A. No. 1907/2013 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to declare Ext.P2 revenue recovery proceedings ordered by the Tribunal dated 08.10.2013 as illegal as the same suffers from jurisdictional infirmity. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The seminal legal question arises for consideration is; whether absence of a valid driving licence on the date of accident is a reason to grant recovery right? 5. In this context it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the 2nd respondent did possess a valid driving licence to drive motorcycle with gear from 19.03.1997 and thereafter it was renewed on 16.08.2011. The date of the accident was on 28.07.2011. Thus the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the 2nd respondent did possess a valid driving licence prior to the accident though he did not possess a valid driving licence on the date of accident. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner, subsequent renewal of the driving licence would suffice since the insurance company failed to prove disqualification on the part of the 2nd respondent to drive the motorcycle involved in the accident at the relevant time of accident. In this context, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh, 2004 (1) KLT 781 . Whereas the learned counsel for the insurance company highlighted the decision reported in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 701 to contend that in the absence of driving licence on the date of accident, the company is entitled to get recovery right and the Honourable Supreme Court granted recovery right in the said decision in a similar case. In Para-9 of Vidyadhar Mahariwala's case (supra) the Honourable Supreme Court referred Para-89 of Swaran Singh's case (supra) as under: “9. xxx xxx xxx 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 of the 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, 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 maxi-cab, 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. 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. After discussing the law in detail, the Apex Court held that the insurance company would have no liability when the driving license of the driver was not in force on the date of accident. Subsequently in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Kusum Rai, 2006 (2) KLT 300 (SC) the Honourable Supreme Court held that the owner would be liable for payment of compensation in a case where the driver was not having valid licence at all.” 6. While resolving the controversy, it is apposite to refer the relevant provisions: Sections 2(10), 3, 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, referred by a larger Bench of this Court in Para-16 to 18 of the decision reported in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Poulose, 2015 (1) KLT 682 (LB) after referring decisions reported in Swaran Singh's case (supra), Malla Prakasarao vs. Malla Janaki and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 373, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kusum Rai, 2006 (2) KLT 300 (SC) and finally decision reported in Ram Babu Tiwari vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, 2008 ACJ 2654 : “16. Section 2(10) of the Act defines driving licence to mean the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description. 17. Ltd. and Others, 2008 ACJ 2654 : “16. Section 2(10) of the Act defines driving licence to mean the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description. 17. The necessity for a driving licence is stated in Section 3 of the Act, which reads as follows: “No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor cab or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of Section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him to do so. (2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving insturctions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.” 18. Sections 14 and 15 of the Act deal with the currency of driving licences to drive motor vehicles and renewal of driving licences respectively. These sections read as under: “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. (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 thereon: (A) be effective for a period of twenty years from the date of such issue or renewal. (B) until the date on which such person attains the age of fifty years, whichever is earlier. (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. (Emphasis added) 15. Renewal of driving licences: (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 its 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 far as may be, apply in relation to every such case as they apply in relation to a learner's licence. (2) An application for the renewal of a driving licence shall be made in such form and accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (3) Where an application for the renewal of a driving licence is made previous to, or not more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the fee payable for such renewal shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government: Provided that the fee referred to in sub-section (3) may be accepted by the licensing authority in respect of an application for the renewal of a driving licence made under this sub-section if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from applying within the time specified in sub-section (3). Provided further that if the application 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 to its satisfaction the test of competence to drive referred to in sub-section (3) of section 9. (5) Where the application for renewal has been rejected, the fee paid shall be refunded to such extent and in such manner as maybe prescribed by the Central Government. (6) Where the authority renewing the driving licence is not the authority which issued the driving licence it shall intimate the fact of renewal to the authority which issued the driving licence.” While answering the queries, the larger Bench of this Court in Poulose's case (supra), it was held in Para-27 as under: “(a) We hold that the decision of the Full Bench in Oriental Insurance Company v. Paulose (cited supra) that driving licence continues to exist in spite of expiry of its validity period unless it has been shown that the licensee had been disqualified to hold one does not lay down the correct law. Therefore, it is over-ruled. (b) We further hold that a driving licence which stood expired on the date of the road traffic accident and not subsequently renewed within the statutory period of thirty days would not fulfill the requirement of “duly licenced” under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. (c) The appeal is disposed of allowing the appellant insurance company, who has already satisfied the award, to recover the amount paid by it to the first respondent, from the second respondent who is the owner-cum-driver.” 7. Reading the ratio in Vidyadhar Mahariwala's case (supra) and Poulose's case (supra) it has to be held that a driving licence which stood expired on the date of the road traffic accident and not subsequently renewed within the statutory period of 30 days would not fulfill the requirement of “duly licenced” under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Act and therefore authorising such a person to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident is a clear violation of policy condition. Thus it is held that the award passed by the Tribunal under challenge in this matter granting recovery right in favour of the company does not call for any interference and therefore M.A.C.A. No. 1907/2013 deserves dismissal. 8. Thus it is held that the award passed by the Tribunal under challenge in this matter granting recovery right in favour of the company does not call for any interference and therefore M.A.C.A. No. 1907/2013 deserves dismissal. 8. Coming to O.P. (MAC) No. 3799/2013, in fact, the same is challenge against revenue recovery proceedings ordered by the Tribunal in tune with the award. In view of the finding in M.A.C.A. No. 1907/2013 confirming the recovery right granted by the Tribunal, Ext.P2 order of revenue recovery dated 08.10.2013, cannot be interfered at all, since the same is legally sustainable one. Therefore, nothing survives in O.P. (MAC) No. 3799/2013 to be decided further and therefore this Original Petition also must fail. 9. In the result, M.A.C.A. No. 1907/2013 and O.P. (MAC) No. 3799/2013 will stand dismissed. Considering the nature of the relief sought for in both the cases, there will be no order as to costs. 10. The interim stay order passed in these cases, shall stand vacated.