ORDER

1. LEAVE GRANTED.

2. HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.

3. DELAY CONDONED.

4. WE FIND THAT THE HIGH COURT RELIED ON A DECISION OF THIS COURT IN NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. V. MANDAR MADHAV TAMBE1. THE ISSUE RELATED TO THE LIABILITY OF AN INSURER WHEN THE OFFENDING VEHICLE IS DRIVEN BY A PERSON HOLDING A LEARNERS LICENCE. THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION IN MADHAV TAMBE EASEL THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS NO LIABILITY, THOUGH THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HEREIN REFERRED TO AS "THE TRIBUNAL" HAD FIXED THE LIABILITY ON THE INSURANCE COMPANY. CORRECTNESS OF THE DECISION IN MADHAV TAMBE EASEL CAME TO BE CONSIDERED IN NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. SWARAN SINGH2. IT WAS HELD THAT MADHAV TAMBE CASE1 WAS DECIDED ON THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE WITHOUT TAKING NOTE OF THE BINDING PRECEDENTS. IT WAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT EVEN WHEN THE OFFENDING VEHICLE WAS DRIVEN BY A PERSON HOLDING A LEARNERS LICENCE, THE INSURERS LIABILITY EXISTED. THIS POSITION HAS BEEN CLARIFIED IN PARAS 93 AND 94 OF THE JUDGMENT.

5. IT APPEARS THAT THE AWARDED AMOUNT WITH INTEREST WAS DEPOSITED IN THE HIGH COURT. THERE IS NO CLEAR INDICATION AS TO WHETHER THE INSURANCE COMPANY WITHDREW