JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Bombay High Court upholding the liability of the appellant Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation awarded to respondent No. I who had suffered some injuries as a result of an accident.

2. On 4th July, 1979, an accident occurred involving two scooters. One scooter No. (MTM 6327) was being driven by respondent No. 1 (the claimant) and the other scooter (BYZ 5348) was being driven by respondent No. 3. As a result of this accident respondent No. 1 suffered some injuries and he filed an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals for compensation.

3. The appellant contested the said application. It was contended on its behalf that on 22nd July, 1977, respondent No. 3 had obtained a learners licence, which enabled him to drive for the purpose of learning to drive. The validity of this learners licence had expired on 21st November, 1977. When the accident took place on 4th July, 1979, respondent No. 3 was neither holding a driving licence as contemplated by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, nor was he holding a learners licence. It appears that soon after the accident respondent No. 3 obtained a fresh learners licence on 7th July, 1979 and there-after, on 9th July, 1979 obtained a driving licence.

4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, vide its award dated 2nd June, 1984, came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of respondent No. 3. It found that respondent No. 1 was entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,60,000/- an award was accordingly passed directing respondents 1 to 3 therein, including the appellant Insurance Company, to jointly or separately pay the said amount together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

5. The appellant filed an appeal against the said award. The main contention which was raised on behalf of the appellant was that respondent No. 3 was not duly licensed to drive a scooter, and there-after, in view of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and also in view of one specific clause which had been inserted in the Insurance Policy, the insurance company was absolved of all liability. This exclusion clause in the policy which the appellant company relied upon, is as follows :

Provided that the person driving holds a valid driving licence at the time of the accident or had held a permanent driving licence (other than a learners licence) and is not disqualified from holding such a licence."

6. The High Court came to the conclusion that the Act did not contemplate the grant of a permanent driving licence. It then proceeded to hold that the term duly licensed in Section 96 (2) (b) (ii) of the Act would include the holder of a learners licence if he had once such a licence then the aforesaid exclusion clause would not be applicable.

7. While granting leave to appeal this Court made it clear that the leave was being granted on the condition that the appellant herein would pay the amount awarded to the claimant, irrespective of the result of the case.

8. On behalf of the appellant it has been contended by Mr. Suri that at the time when the accident occurred respondent No. 3 did not hold any licence. This being so the aforesaid provisions in the insurance policy and also Section 96 (2) (b) (ii) of the Act absolved the appellant of any liability.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the observations of the judgment under appeal and also on a similar view taken in the decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Tilak Ram, 1985 ACC CJ 481 : (AIR 1986 Him Pra 27) and submitted observations of the judgment under appeal and also on a similar view taken in the decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Tilak Ram, 1985 ACC CJ 481 : (AIR 1986 Him Pra 27) and submitted that inasmuch as respondent No. 3 had held a learners licence at one point of time, the insurance company was liable to pay the amount of co