The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company cannot escape liability if the vehicle is driven by a person holding a learner's license and not disqualified from holding such a license.

( 1 ) THE claimants in MVC. No. 360/81 before the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, at Mangalore (Dakshina Kannada) had claimed compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/ on account of the death of B. Thimmappashetty who died on 7-8-1981 at about 5 p. m. when he was driving the scooter bearing No. MXJ 7585. At that time another motor cycle bearing No. MYG 9166 of the first respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal, came from the opposite side and hit the scooter on which the deceased was going. He sustained fatal injuries and was removed to K. M. C. Hospital at Manipal immediately. In spite of the treatment given to him he succumbed to the injuries on 4-9-1981. He was a clerk in the Syndicate Bank at Manipal and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs, 1,212 97 ps. per month. In course of time he could have drawn monthly salary of Rs 3,000/.

( 2 ) THE first respondent owner of the said motor cycle bearing MYG 9166 was himself driving his vehicle when this accident occurred. While denying that the accident was due to his negligence and also the quantum of loss of dependancy he averred that the motor cycle was insured duly under the 2nd respondent and in case he was liable to pay any compensation, the same was liable to be paid by the insurer 2nd respondent.

( 3 ) THE 2nd respondent-Insurer in its written statement while adopting the same contentions of the 1st respondent on the point of rashness or negligence further contended that its liability is governed by the terms, conditions and limitations as to the use of the vehicle contained in the policy of insurance issued by it. It asserted that the owner-driver of the vehicle had no driving licence at the time the accident occurred. In fact the first respondent was holding only a learner's licence No. 475 from 14-11-1980 till 13-5-1981 and a fresh licence came to be issued only on 14-8-1981 valid upto 13-2-1982. Admittedly, this accident occurred on 7-8-1981 and therefore on the date of the accident the first respondent had no driving licence at all. Therefore, it is not liable to indemnify the first respondent against the liability that may be fixed against him.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal addressed itself to the various issues including the one as to the valid driving licence of respondent-1 at the time of the accident. On the point of negligence it found that it was respondent-1 who was solely responsible in causing this accident and determined the compensation at Rs. 75,500/ -. On issue No. 4 with regard to the existence of the valid driving licence it found in favour of the first respondent and because there was renewal of the learner's licence he was deemed to have possessed a valid driving licence and therefore the insurance Company is liable to pay the award amount.

( 5 ) IT is the original 2nd respondent that has now come up in appeal challenging the finding of the Tribunal below that it is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle against his liability. Referring to the relevant term in the insurance policy as to the driver who could drive the vehicle, it is urged that admittedly respondent-1 before the tribunal as well as in this appeal who is the owner rider of the vehicle did not hold a valid driving licence nor had he held a permanent driving licence at the time of the accident so as to make the insurer liable to pay the compensation amount. He secured fresh learner's licence with effect from 14-8-1981 and since there is breach of the term of the policy the appellant is absolved of any liability. Even the learner's licence was for a broken period. There was no valid or permanent licence in his favour. During arguments the same point is urged and the appellant's counsel has contended that the term of the policy clearly excludes the holder of a learner's licence. Our attention was invited to the relevant term in the policy Ex. D-1 and with regard to driver it reads as follows:"driver: Any of the following: a) The insured. The insured may also drive a Moto