JUDGMENT : MADAN GOPAL VYAS, J. 1. The aforesaid Civil Misc. Appeals preferred by the Insurance company (SBCMA Nos. 245/2005, 244/2005, 271/2005, 285/2005 and 366/2005), claimants (SBCMA No. 243/2005) and SB Civil Cross Objection Misc. Application No. 21/2005 filed in SBCMA No. 245/2005 by the claimant-Mohan Singh have been heard and are being decided by this common judgment as they have been preferred against the common judgment and award dated 16.6.2004 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the learned tribunal for short) in Claim Case No. 193/2000 (Sajjan Kanwar and Others vs. Gopal Ram and Others), Claim Case No. 257/2000 (Laxman Singh vs. Gopal Ram and Others), Claim Case No. 258/2000 (Panney Singh vs. Gopal Ram and Others), Claim Case No. 75/2001 (Mohan Singh vs. Gopal Ram and Others) and Claim Case No. 76/2001 (Jagmal Singh vs. Gopal Ram and Others). 2. The facts in brief are that on 21.4.2000 when the claimants Laxman Singh, Panney Singh, Mohan Singh and Jagmal Singh were travelling in jeep bearing No. RJ-19-C-3415 which was being driven by the deceased Bhawani Singh from village Uthwaliya to Bambu, bus driver Ramswarooop while driving the bus no. RJ-07-P-0876 rashly and negligently, hit the jeep, resulting into death of Bhawani Singh and simple and grievous injuries to other claimants. Thus, claiming the different amount of compensation, the claim petitions were filed by the claimants. 3. In the aforesaid appeals preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company, Mr. Sanjeev Johari, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the learned tribunal has wrongly decided issue no. 7. Issue no. 7 is reproduced as under: ^^¼7½ D;k nq?kZVuk ds le; vÁkFkhZ la[;k 2 jkeLo:i ds ikl okgu pykus dk oS/k ,oa ÁHkkoh MzªkbZfoax ykbZlsUl ugha Fkk] blfy;s chek dEiuh dk nkf;Ro ugha gS\ && vÁkFkhZ la[;k 03** 4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that it an admitted position that the driving license of the driver was valid from 17.7.1996 to 16.7.1999 and the accident occurred on 21.4.2000. Thus, the driving license had expired 9 months before the date of accident. However, learned Tribunal while deciding the issue no. 7 gave a finding that since the appellant-Insurance Company failed to prove the aforesaid issue, therefore, it is liable to indemnify the claimants. 5. Thus, the driving license had expired 9 months before the date of accident. However, learned Tribunal while deciding the issue no. 7 gave a finding that since the appellant-Insurance Company failed to prove the aforesaid issue, therefore, it is liable to indemnify the claimants. 5. Learned Senior Counsel while relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Ishwar Chandra and Others vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, (2007) 10 SCC 650 and Ram Babu Tiwari vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, (2008) 8 SCC 165 submits that though as per the provisions of Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in the event application for renewal of license is filed within a period of 30 days from the date of expiry thereof, the same would be renewed automatically, which means that even if an accident had taken place within the aforementioned period, the driver shall be deemed to be possessing a valid license, but in the present case, the accident occurred on 21.4.2000 and the license expired on 16.7.1999 and there is no evidence available on record to show that the driver had applied for renewal of his license. Thus, in the present case, the driver did not possess a valid driving license at the time of accident and therefore, there was a violation of policy conditions for which the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be held liable. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that in case, this Court comes to the conclusion that the appellant- Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation, then also, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rishi Pal Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4919/2022), decided on 26.7.2022) and this Court in Baksha Ram vs. Ladu Singh and Others (SBCMA No. 626/2002), decided on 16.9.2019, if there was a gap in the renewal of driving license, then the Insurance Company is absolved from its liability, however, can be directed to pay and recover the award amount from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 7. Despite service, nobody appeared on behalf of the driver and owner. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties in the appeals filed by the appellant-Insurance Company. 9. This Court in Baksha Ram (supra) has held as under: “Mr. 7. Despite service, nobody appeared on behalf of the driver and owner. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties in the appeals filed by the appellant-Insurance Company. 9. This Court in Baksha Ram (supra) has held as under: “Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned Counsel for the claimants also supports the doctrine of pay and recovery by citing judgment of Parminder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others, (2019) 7 SCC 217 , relevant portion of which is as under: “7. On the issue of liability to pay the compensation awarded, we affirm the view taken by the High Court that the Respondent-Insurance Company is absolved of the liability to bear the compensation, as evidence has been produced from the office of the Regional Transport Office to prove that the drivers of the two offending trucks were driving on the basis of invalid driving licenses. It is also relevant to note that the owners and drivers of the offending trucks have not appeared at any stage of the proceedings, including this Court. 7.1. This Court in Shamanna and Others vs. Divisional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, held that if the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess a valid driving license, the principle of ‘pay and recovery’ can be ordered to direct the Insurance Company to the pay the victim, and then recovery the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. 7.2. We deem it just and fair to direct the Respondent-Insurance Company to pay the enhanced amount of compensation as indicated in Para 6 above, to the Appellant within a period of 12 weeks from the date of this judgment. The Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to make out a Demand Draft in the name of the Appellant, which can be used for his care for the rest of his life. The Respondent-Insurance Company is entitled to recovery the amount from the owners and drivers of the two offending trucks.” 10. In view of the above, the Civil Misc. Appeals (SBCMA Nos. 245/2005, 244/2005, 271/2005, 285/2005 and 366/2005) filed by the appellant-Insurance Company are allowed and it is held that the appellant-Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability. It is further directed that the appellant-Insurance Company shall at first pay the award amount to the claimants and thereafter, be at liberty to recover the same from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 11. It is further directed that the appellant-Insurance Company shall at first pay the award amount to the claimants and thereafter, be at liberty to recover the same from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 11. In so far as the cross objection (SB Civil Cross Objection Misc. Application No. 21/2005) and the civil misc. appeal (SBCMA No. 243/2005) preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the award amount are concerned, the same are disposed of in view of the agreement arrived at between the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and claimants. Thus, the enhanced amount of compensation is as enumerated in the following tables: Total For Permanent Disablement (A) Rs. 25,000 + Rs. 5,000 x 30 Rs. 1,75,000/- Pain and Suffering (B) 25% x 1,75,000 Rs. 43,750/- Medical Expenses (C) Rs. 20,000 Total compensation awardable (D=A+B+C) Rs. 2,38,750/- Compensation already awarded (E) Rs. 1,50,000/- Remaining Amount (F=D-E) Rs. 88,000 Interest @ 6% p.a. from date of award i.e. from 21.03.2001 (G) 5,325 x 23 Rs. 1,22,475/- Enhanced compensation (F+G) Rs. 2,11,225/- SB Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 243/2005: Total Total Annual income of the deceased + (40%) increase in income + 17 multiplier - deduction (one fourth of the income) (A) Rs. 4000/+ 40% x 12 x 17-1/4 Rs. 8,56,800/- Other conventional heads (B) Rs. 77,000/- Total compensation awardable (C=A+B) Rs. 9,33,800/- Compensation already awarded (D) Rs. 4,58,200/- Remaining Amount (E=C-D) Rs. 4,75,600/- Interest @ 6% p.a. from date of award i.e. from 20.07.2000 (F) Rs. 6,56,328/- Enhanced Award (E+F) Rs. 11,31,928/- 12. It is made clear that the appellant-Insurance Company shall pay the aforesaid enhanced amount and then will be entitled to recover the entire awarded and enhanced amount from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 13. All the interlocutory applications as well as the stay applications also stand disposed of accordingly.