Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—Heard Shri S.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Siddharth Srivastava, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri S.D. Ojha for respondent No. 4.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act) has been filed by Insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 31.5.2000 passed by Additional District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Meerut awarding a sum of Rs. 5,85,500/- as compensation to the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

3. Facts, in short, giving rise to the dispute are as under.

A claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs was preferred by the claimant-respondents on the allegation that on 3.9.1997 when deceased Sobha Ram was going on his moped No. U.P. 15D 1960 to his office at about 10 am, when he reached telephone exchange, then near SSD Crossing, Bus No. UHN 1152, which was being driven in rash and negligent manner, hit the moped, which caused grievous injuries and resulted into death of Sobha Ram. It was further pleaded that the deceased was aged 55 years and was working in CDA Pension office and his total income including that of from agriculture was Rs. 12,559/- per month. The proceedings were contested by the appellant-insurance company denying the allegations. It was pleaded in the additional pleas that the accident was caused due to own negligence of the deceased and the driver of the bus was not having a valid driving licence. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed two issues.

(1) Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle UHN 1152.

(2) Whether the claimants were entitled for any compensation and if yes, then how much and from whom.

4. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, the Tribunal returned a finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle No. UHN 1152, which resulted in the death of Sobha Ram.

5. On the question of quantum of compensation, on the basis of the documentary evidence brought on record in the form of salary slip, the Tribunal returned a finding that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 10,252/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, determined his annual income to be Rs. 72,000/-. Treating the age of the deceased to be 55 years, the Tribunal in accordance with the Schedule II applied a multiplier of 8 and in this manner, determined the total compensation to be Rs. 5,85,500/-.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that since the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence, which fact was established before the Tribunal by cogent evidence, hence, the Tribunal committed a manifest error of law in not allowing the right to the appellant to recover the amount of compensation from the owner. It is further submitted that since the vehicle was being driven in violation of the insurance policy as the driver did not have a valid driving licence, as such, it was the insurer, who was liable to pay the compensation and the liability has wrongly been fastened upon the appellant.

7. A perusal of the award goes to show that it was pleaded and established before the Tribunal that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle expired on 9.9.1996 and admittedly it was renewed from 8.10.1997. The accident, admittedly, took place on 3.9.1997. Thus, what is to be seen is whether the renewal made on 8.10.1997 would relate back to the date of its expiry.

8. Section 15 of the Act relate to the renewal of the driving licence. The relevant part of Section 15 for the purposes of the case reads as under.

“15. Renewal of driving licences.—(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