Deepak Gupta, J.

This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award dated 10th April, 2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Una whereby he awarded a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- in favour of the claimants on account of the damages suffered by them due to the loss of their goats in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The undisputed facts are that on 23.3.2003 bus No. HP-55A-7474, which is owned by Haryana Roadways, driven by respondent Dharam Pal and insured with the appellant Insurance Company met with an accident. The claimants, who are shepherds (Gaddis), take their goats for grazing from place to place, were at a place near Dhussara Bazar. Bus No. HP-55A-7474 came from Una side at a high speed and hit the goats. 40 goats died at the spot and 9 were injured and these goats died later. The claimants filed a claim petition.

3. As far as negligence is concerned there can be no manner of doubt that this is a case of rash and negligent driving. The facts speak for themselves. 49 goats could not have been run over if the bus was being plied at a slow or reasonable speed. The mere fact that 49 goats were run over itself clearly indicates that the driver was driving the vehicle at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner.

4. As far as quantum is concerned, the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- is just and reasonable and calls for no interference. The only question is whether the Insurance Company could have been held liable since the driver did not have a valid driving license at the time when the accident took place.

5. The facts which stand proved on record and from the statement of driver Shri Dharam Pal, who appeared as RW-1 it is apparent that initially a license was issued in his favour in the year 1999, which was valid upto 20th October, 2002. He has admitted that he did not get this renewed and the same was got renewed only on 31.3.2003 after the accident had taken place. Therefore, there was no license between 20.10.2002 and 31.3.2003. The accident in question took place on 23.3.2003 and the only question is whether the driver had a valid driving license or not.

6. Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the currency of license to drive motor vehicles. It provides different time periods for which different licenses for different classes of vehicles shall be valid. In the present case, the license issued was valid only up to 20.10.2002 and admittedly the accident took place on 23.3.2003. The proviso to this Section reads as follows:

Provided that every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section, continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry.

7. Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for renewal of driving licenses. Section 15(1), insofar as it is relevant to the present case, reads as follows:

15(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 date 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 date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal.

8. In the present case the license had expired on 20.10.2002 and even if benefit of proviso to Section 14 is given the license would be valid only for a period of 30 days from such expiry i.e. upto 20.11.2002.

9. Ms. Seema Sood, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, contends that if the renewal is not done within 30 days then thereafter the license holder holds no driving license and it cannot be said that he either holds an effective driving license or that he is duly licensed to drive the vehicle. She submits that, in fact, the driver holds no license at all after the expiry of 30 days and the renewal of license after 30 days can be effective only from the date the license is renewed.

10. On the other hand counsel for the respondents su