( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has directed the appellant to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the person who died in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle belonging to the appellant. The Tribunal after holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle has further observed that since the accident was caused by a person who had only a "learners licence" in his favour it will be the obligation of the driver and owner of the vehicle to pay compensation. Aggrieved by the award, the appellants have filed the present appeal.

( 2 ) IT is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence duly issued by the Transport Authority in his favour on 19. 4. 1992, and the same was valid till April, 1995. It is submitted by him that the licence was again renewed w. e. f 19. 2. 1996 and was valid upto 19. 2. 1999. It is submitted that in between the driver had obtained the learners licence on 1. 5. 1995 as it was a condition precedent to obtain a regular licence from the Regional Transport Authority. It is submitted that though the accident was caused on 8. 9. 1995, but firstly as the licence of the driver was renewed on 19. 2. 1996, the same would be deemed to have been renewed w. e. f the date of expiry of the old licence i. e. 19. 4. 1995 and secondly even assuming the renewal will not have retrospective validity from the date of the expiry of the earlier licence, as the driver had a learners licence in his favour on the date of the accident, he would be deemed to possess a valid driving vehicle as on the date of the accident and the Tribunal, therefore, could not direct the appellant to pay compensation to the claimants.

( 3 ) IN my opinion, none of the two grounds urged by learned counsel for the appellant has any force. The Supreme Court in a judgment reported as National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Jarnail Singh and Ors. JT 2001 (Suppl. 2) SC 218 has held that renewal of a driving licence after two years will not retrospectively validate the licence from the date of the expiry of the earlier licence. It was held that under Section 15 (1) of the Act a licence can be renewed from the date of its expiry if an application is made to it for that purpose. But the proviso to the said sub-section provides that `where the application for the renewal is made more than 30 days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal. " It was held that if the driving license was renwed with effect from the date of its renewal because of the applicability of the first proviso to Section 15 (1) of the Act, natural corollary would be that the driver had no licence to drive the vehicle from the date of its expiry till it was issued by the Authority after renewal. In the present case, the driving licence had expired on 19. 4. 1995 and was renewed only on 19. 2. 1996. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court the natural corollary would be that the driver did not have any driving licence between 19. 4. 1995 and 19. 2. 1996 and the accident having taken place on 8. 9. 1995, the same was caused by a driver who did not have a valid driving licence during that period.

( 4 ) I also do not agree with learned counsel for the appellant that since the driver had a "learners driving licence" in his favour as on the date of the accident, he would be deemed to have a valid driving licence and consequently the appellant would not be held liable to pay compensation. A learners driving licence is defined in Section 3 (9) of the Act to mean the licence issued by a competent Authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive as a "learner" a motor vehicle of any specified class. The Central Government has framed rules for gr