R.C. Chavan, J.

This appeal is directed against the award passed by the Presiding Officer of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Margao whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 41,50,000/- with interest towards loss suffered by the claimants on account of death of Dr. Subhashchandra Nagzarkar in an accident which occurred on 26/12/1997 on National Highway No. 17 at about 9.30 a.m.

2. Respondents no.1 to 5/claimants claim that Dr. Subhashchandra was travelling in his own Car when his car was dashed by the truck bearing no. KA-20/1253 driven by respondent no.1 and owned by respondent no.2 and insured by respondent no.3 as shown in the claim petition. The victim died on the spot. The victim was stated to be having monthly income of Rs. 55,500/-. The claimants made claim of Rs. 1 Crore and 50 thousand.

3. The driver and owner of the vehicle i.e. respondents no.1 and 2 did not contest the claim petition. Respondent no. 3, the insurer of the vehicle contested the claim by filing written statement contending that respondent no. 1 did not hold a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Thus, there was violation of statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as also the policy and, therefore, respondent no. 3 was not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. The insurer also denied the allegation about earning of the victim and denied that a sum of Rs. 1 Crore and 50 thousand could be claimed by the claimants.

4. Learned Presiding Officer framed necessary issues and after considering the evidence tendered, held that respondents no.1 to 3 i.e. including present appellant insurer were liable jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 41,50,000/-. Aggrieved thereby the insurer has filed this appeal.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned Counsel for the original claimants. With the aid of both, I have gone through the evidence on record.

6. The evidence discloses that there can be no serious dispute about the rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent no.1 Ratnakar which led to death of Dr. Subhashchandra Nagzarkar on 26/12/1997. Thus, as far as the owner and driver of the truck are concerned, there can not be dispute that they are liable to compensate the claimants, who are widow and four minor children of the victim.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is not liable to compensate the claimants since the driver of the vehicle did not hold a valid and effective licence at the relevant time. A copy of the particulars of driving licence at exhibit 59 shows that respondent no.1 had acquired the licence to drive light motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle on 10/12/1987 which was valid till 09/12/1990. It does not seem to have been renewed between 1990 and 1993. It was renewed on 23/03/1993 and was valid till 22/03/1996. It was again renewed on 09/02/1998 and was valid till 08/02/2001. Thus, on the date of accident i.e. 26/12/1997, the licence had not been renewed. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that since the driver was not holding valid and effective licence, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Malla Prakasarao v. Malla Janaki; reported in (2004)3 SCC 343 where the driving licence of the driver had expired and the driver had not applied for renewal within 30 days as required in Section 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In view of this, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the owner of the vehicle bearing C. A. No.1613/1996. The Supreme Court then proceeded to hear the other appeals and proceeded to decide them on merits. Though this judgment was reported in 2004, it was actually delivered on 06/08/2002.

8. Learned Counsel for the claimants submitted that the Supreme Court had in fact considered this judgment in National Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh and others reported in AIR 2004 SC 1531. This w