The main legal point established is that the expiry of a driving license does not automatically absolve the Insurance Company from liability if the renewal application was made within one year of the expiry, as established in K.G.Srinivasamurthy Vs. Habib Khathun, 2002 ACJ 557.

JUDGMENT

1. MFA No.100211/2021 and MFA No.100212/2021 are by the owners of the vehicle challenging the Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal insofar as it saddles liability on them. MFA Crob. No.100060/2021 in MFA No.100211/2021 is by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The fact that an accident occurred on 15/2/2019 resulting in the death of Jyothi and her daughter Kumari Pranamya @ Pratiksha is not in dispute .

3. The deceased-Jyoti and Pranamya were riding pillion in a motorcycle which was being driven by Anand Mali, the husband of deceased-Jyoti and the father of Kumari Pranamya. The Tribunal on assessment of the evidence has come to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled for a compensation of Rs.14, 42, 936.00 (In MVC.No.119/2019 i.e., MFA.No.100211/2021) and Rs.5, 40, 000.00 (in MVC.No.120/2019 i.e., MFA.No.100212/2021).

4. In respect of liability, the Tribunal took the view that the driver of the tipper with which the motorcycle had collided did not possess a valid and effective driving license and therefore the owner of the Tipper would be liable. The Tribunal noticed that the license of the driver of the Tipper had expired on 20/1/2018 and the accident had occurred on 15/2/2019 and thereafter on 16/2/2019 the driving license had been renewed and therefore the Insurance Company could not be made liable.

5. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the driving license did expire on 20/1/2018. Ex.R.6, the details of the license holder Veerayya S. Naganur indicates that on 6/9/2018 he had filed an application seeking for renewal of his driving license and he had also uploaded his documents, photograph and signature and had also made payment of fee for renewal. Ex.R.6 indicates that the R.T.O. had completed the process of capturing the photo on 21/12/2018, conducted the scrutiny of the application on 4/2/2019 and had thereafter approved the endorsement on driving license on 16/2/2019 and ultimately printed the driving licence on 18/2/2019.

6. It is therefore clear that the driver of the Truck had applied for renewal and had remitted the necessary fee much prior to the accident. If the licensing authority had consumed certain time for scrutinizing the application and granting the renewal, it cannot be said that there was no valid or effective driving license in favour of the rider of the Tipper. The fact of the matter is ultimately that an application for renewal was made much before the accident in question and necessary fee was also paid much before the accident.

7. A Division Bench of this Court in MFA.No.103680/2015 which was decided on 8/2/2019 has held that mere expiry of the license would not absolve the Insurance Company from its liability. This Court has also held that the non-renewal of a license could not be equated to a case of non possession of license or a case where the driver was disqualified from driving license. The Division Bench has in the said decision also relied upon by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of K.G.Srinivasamurthy Vs. Habib Khathun, reported in 2002 ACJ 557, which states that when the application for renewal is made within one year of the expiry, the licensing authority had no power to refuse renewal of the license and therefore the expiry of the driving license would be of no consequence is an application for renewal was made within a year of the expiry.

8. In the instant case, admittedly, an application for renewal of the driving license was made on 6/9/2018 i.e., 08 months after the expiry of the license and about 5 months before the accident had occurred. This application filed for renewal was pending consideration till 16/2/2019. As held by the Division Bench in the case of K.G.Srinivasamurthy (supra), obviously, the licensing authority could not have been refused the renewal and merely because the licensing authority took its own time to renew the license that does not mean that the petitioner did not possess a valid and effective drivin