( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) ONE Reshma Devi, aged about 40 years, was going to take bath at Rajghat Ganga with her son, Respondent No. 3 herein. Driver of an Eicher Tractor bearing Registration No. U. P. 30/8423 was driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently hit her as a result whereof, she fell down. She died on 01. 05. 1995. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act) was filed by Respondent No. 2 herein. The said tractor was insured with Respondent No. 1, the Insurance Company.

( 3 ) THE Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by an award dated 14. 10. 2004 determined the amount of compensation payable to the said respondent at Rs. 1,06,000/ -. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 75,000/- was to be paid to Respondent No. 2 (husband of the deceased) and Rs. 31,000/- to her son, Respondent No. 3 herein. Respondent No. 1, however, preferred an appeal thereagainst, which was dismissed by an order dated 24. 01. 2005, stating: we, therefore, while dismissing the aforesaid appeal give liberty to the appellant to initiate appropriate proceedings against the owner and driver of the vehicle for realization of the amount, which is to be paid by the Insurance Company in terms of the award to the third party-claimant subject to establishing its case before the Tribunal. We further provide that the amount, which is in deposit before this Court as well as before the Tribunal shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the claimants/respondents. The balance amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company within two months from today before the Tribunal. On deposit so being made, the claimants/respondents shall be allowed to withdraw the same also without furnishing any security. It will, however, be open to the Insurance Company to recover the amount in question from the insured. For the purpose of recovering the same from the insured owner of the vehicle, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceedings before the Executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. It is further directed that before releasing the amount, the insured owner of the vehicle shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish security for the entire amount, which the insurer will pay to the claimants. This observation is in consonance with the view taken by the Apex Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan and Ors.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 1, however, filed an application for review of the said order, inter alia, on the premise that as on the date of the accident, admittedly, the driver was not holding any valid licence in terms of the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh and Ors. Relying on or on the basis of the decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan and Ors. , the said application for review was dismissed.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that although the licence held by the driver of the tractor expired on 27. 08. 1994, the same later on having been renewed, the Insurance Company was liable to reimburse the amount of compensation payable by the appellants to the claimant-respondents. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, supported the impugned judgment.

( 6 ) SECTION 15 (1) of the Act and the first proviso appended thereto reads as under:

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 dale 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 dale of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal: from a bare p