K.P.Jyothindranath, J.

This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

2. The point raised in this appeal is that whether the Insurance Company can be absolved from the liability in a case where the rider is holding only a learner's licence, and not accompanied by a licensed instructor as contemplated under Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules.

3. The facts is as follows:

4. A motor vehicle accident occurred on 27.5.2007 at about 6 p.m. at Thiruchilangadi. The vehicle involved is a motor cycle. The motor cycle hit against a pedestrian. The pedestrian sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The vehicle was driven by the 6th respondent, who was holding only a learner's licence at the time of the accident. The legal heirs of the deceased/claimants, alleged negligence of the rider as the cause of accident and filed the claim petition.

5. It is the case of the Insurance Company that even though a contention was raised regarding the violation of the conditions in the policy, it was neither considered by the tribunal nor absolved the Insurance Company from the liability. It is the specific case of the Insurance Company that rider was only having a learner's licence and was not accompanied by a licensed driver. The tribunal burdened the appellant with the liability to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

6. When the appeal came up for hearing, the main submission made before us is that, while holding the appellant liable to indemnify the insured and to compensate the claimants, the tribunal went wrong in not following the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others reported in 2004(1)KLT 781 (S.C). In New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. M.M.Tambe reported in 1996 (2) K.L.T. Short Note cases No.59, it is categorically held that where the driver had only a learner's licence, the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay the amount awarded to the claimant. It is the submission that, it is a settled law that if the rider was holding only a learner's licence, a duly licensed person should be on pillion, then only it can be treated as a licensed driver. It is also submitted that, this aspect is categorically stated in the policy issued and if not complied with, there is contravention of the policy condition and the statutory defence available to the insurer in terms of Section 149(2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act will be available. This aspect is not considered by the tribunal and the Insurance Company is to be absolved from the liability.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submitted before us that it is a settled law that learner's licence is an effective licence for the purpose of insurance coverage. It is the submission that the law is settled by the Swaran Singh's case (supra) which is also relied upon by the appellants' counsel. Since it is a settled position, the tribunal had not adverted to elaboration in this respect.

8. Section 2(1) and Section 2(19) of the Motor Vehicles Act defines the licence :

2 (10) "Driving licence" means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive; otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description;

xx xx

(19) "Learner's licence" means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description;

Thus, it can be seen that the only difference is that the driving licence is issued for the purpose "otherwise than as a learner" whereas the learner's licence is to drive as a learner. The paragraphs which are banked by the appellants in the decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others (supra) are 93 and 94. It is stated therein as follows:

" 93. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for grant of learner's licence. [See