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. 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 1