G. P. Mittal, J.

1. The Appellant Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred this Review Petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure(Code) on the ground that the Appellant Insurance Company had examined R3W2 Jamaludeen Kaim to prove that the driving license No. C08092001262146 possessed by Pala Singh expired on 24.09.2004 and it was renewed only on 21.12.2004. It is stated that this Court had lost sight of the examination of this witness during inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Claims Tribunal) and thus held in para 48 of the impugned judgment that no effort was made to summon any witness from the Transport Department to prove the willful breach of the terms of the policy. I have perused the record. Certified copy of the statement of R3W2 appears at page 37 of the paper book. The witness deposed as under:

I am working as UDC in the office of MLO Ashok Vihar situated at Wazirpur near DTC Subash Palace Depot, New Delhi. I have brought the summoned record of Driving Licence No. C08092001262146 of Pala Singh s/o Makhan Singh r/o A-1/463, Sec. 6, Rohini, Delhi. The license was issued on 21.12.04 and valid upto 20.12.07 for TSR and on 28.1.1986 it was issued to (sic for) HTV. This license was issued for TSR earlier on 7.10.82. The record was verified by Motor Vehicle Inspector Rajan Thomas, the same is Ex. R3W2/A signed by Rajan Thomas at point A. After renewing the license it is again valid from the date of its renewal date. The license Ex. P3W2/2B is valid upto 24.9.04 and it was renewed by the holder on 21.12.04. The computerized report dated 12.5.05 has been issued by me office and the same is Ex. R3W2/C.

XXX by Sh. Udai Raj Singh, Adv for the petitioner.

Nil. Opp given.

XXX by Sh. K.K. Jha Kamal, Adv. for R1 Pala Singh.

Nil. Opp given.

2. Thus, it is apparent that the testimony of R3W2 was not challenged by the driver of the offending vehicle that the licence was renewed only w.e.f. 21.12.2004. In this case, the accident occurred on 02.11.2004.

3. Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act) provides that any licensing authority on an Application made to it to renew a driving licence might renew it from the date of its expiry. It further provides that if the Application for renewal is made more than 30 days after the date of the expiry of the driving licence, it shall be renewed with effect from the date of renewal.

4. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Jarnail Singh & Ors., (2007) 15 SCC 28, the accident took place on 20.10.1994. The driving licence had expired on 18.05.1994 and it was renewed w.e.f. 28.10.1996. After referring to Section 15 (1) of the Act the Court held that since the Insurance Policy stipulated the condition that the vehicle could not be driven by a person without a valid driving licence, the Insured would be guilty of the violation of the condition of the policy.

5. In New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Suresh Chandra Aggarwal, : (2009) 15 SCC 761 [LQ/SC/2009/1433] , it was held that since the driver did not have an effective and valid driving licence on the date of the accident, the Insurance Company could avoid the liability to pay the compensation. Paras 15 to 23 of the report are extracted hereunder:-

15. Having noted the relevant Statutory provisions, we may now advert to the facts at hand. As noticed above, the stand of the appellant is that the claim preferred by the claimant could not be processed and had to be repudiated because special condition No. 5 of the insurance policy had been violated inasmuch as the driver of the insured vehicle did not have an effective driving licence at the time of the accident.

16. Special condition No. 5 reads as follows:

5. Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive-

(a) The insured,

(b) Any other person who is driving on the insureds order or with his permission:

Provided that the person driving holds or had held and has not been disqualified from holding an effective driving licence with all the required endorsements thereon as per the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder for the time being in force to drive the category of Motor Vehicle insured hereunder.

(Emphasis supplied)

It is manifest that the said condition contemplates that apart from the insured, any other person, authorised by the insured, could also drive the vehicle provided the person driving the vehicle "holds or had held and has not been disqualified" from holding an effective driving licence.

17. In the instant case, as noted above, as per the certificate issued by the licensing authority, the driving licence of the deceased driver had expired on 25.10.1991 i.e. four months prior to the date of accident on 29.02.1992 and it was renewed with effect from 23.03.1992. It is not the case of the claimant that the driver had applied for renewal of the licence within 30 days of the date of its expiry. On the contrary, it is the specific case of the appellant that the driving licence was renewed only with effect from 23.03.1992.

18. From a plain reading of Section 15 of the Act, it is clear that if an application for renewal of licence is made within 30 days of the date of its expiry, the licence continues to be effective and valid without a break as the renewal dates back to the date of its expiry. Whereas, when an application for renewal is filed after more than 30 days after the date of its expiry, the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act gets attracted and the licence is renewed only with effect from the date of its renewal, meaning thereby that in the interregnum between the date of expiry of the licence and the date of its renewal, there is no effective licence in existence. The provision is clear and admits of no ambiguity.

19. However, the stand of the claimant before the District and State Fora as also before us was that since the deceased driver was holding a valid licence and had not been disqualified from holding an effective licence, the stipulation in the afore-extracted condition was not infringed. In our view, the argument is stated to be rejected.

20. Admittedly, having failed to apply for renewal of the driving licence within 30 days from the date of its expiry in terms of Section 15 of the Act, the licence could not be renewed with effect from the date of its expiry and therefore, between the period from 26.10.1991 to 22.03.1992, the deceased driver had no valid and effective driving licence as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act. We are convinced that during this period, he did not hold at all an effective driving licence, as required in the terms and conditions governing the policy on the date of accident i.e. 29.02.1992.

21. As a matter of fact, in view of the clear mandate of Section 3 of the Act, the deceased driver was not even permitted to drive the insured vehicle in a public place. Furthermore, the claimant not only committed breach of the terms of the policy, he also violated the provisions of Section 5 of the Act by entrusting the vehicle to a person who did not hold a valid licence on the date of the accident.

22. Although it was not pleaded by Learned Counsel for the appellant, but we fail to understand as to how the licence was and could be renewed w.e.f. 23.03.1992 after the death of the licence-holder on 29.02.1992. In our opinion, therefore, the appellant was not liable to indemnify the claimant for the loss suffered by him in the accident of the insured vehicle.

23. We are fortified in our view by the decision of this Court in Jarnail Singh (supra). In that case also, the driving licence of the driver, who drove the vehicle which got involved in the accident, had expired on 16.05.1994. The accident took place more than five months thereafter i.e. on 20.10.1994 and the driving licence was renewed only with effect from 28.10.1996. On these facts, it was held that proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 15 applied; the driver had no licence to drive the vehicle on the date of accident; the condition in the policy identical to the one in the present case was violated and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any amount to the insured.

6. Thus the Supreme Court held that the person holding an expired licence would be guilty of the offence of driving the vehicle without licence and the insured would be liable for committing the breach of the policy. It was held that the Insurance Company would be entitled to avoid liability.

7. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Suresh Chandra Aggarwal, where the terms of the policy as extracted in Para 16 of the report were much wider, still the driver was held to be not holding a valid driving licence, as the licence had expired and had not been renewed within a period of 30 days of its expiry. It was held to be breach of a condition of the policy, entitling the Insurance Company to avoid the policy.

8. It has to borne in mind that the vehicle involved in this case was a commercial vehicle. It was expected of the owner of the vehicle to have at least seen the driving licence of the driver and its validity. No explanation has been given by the Respondent No. 3 as to the circumstances under which the vehicle was entrusted to the Second Respondent, while his driving licence had already expired on 24.09.2004. In the circumstances, the Appellant has successfully proved that there was willful breach of the terms of the policy on the part of the Respondent (the insured). The Claims Tribunal failed to advert to the evidence produced by the Appellant to prove the breach of the terms of the policy. It is clear that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The impugned order is liable to be reviewed.

9. I accordingly hold that the Appellant Insurance Company has successfully proved the breach of the terms of the policy and is entitled to recovery rights against Respondents No. 2 and 3.

10. The Review Petition is allowed in above terms. Pending Applications stand disposed of.