The main legal point established is that a person holding a learners licence is considered a duly licensed person to drive the vehicle, and the violation of conditions of the licence, which has no nexus with the accident, cannot be used to avoid liability arising out of the accident.

Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2.This appeal has been filed by the owner of the vehicle. He challenged the award dated 03.07.2003, by which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 2,43,000/-to the claimant on account of loss which claimants suffered due to death of Jagdish, who was Taxi driver and was hit by Tractor No. RJ-16R-6195.

3.According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the driver of the vehicle was the owner himself . He had learners driving licence. Though the driver of the vehicle had learners licence, the Tribunal exonerated the insurer from the liability on the ground that the driver did not comply with the condition of the learners driving licence, despite the fact that no such defence was taken by the respondent-Insurance Company.

4.Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had learners licence to drive the vehicle and, therefore, he was duly licenced as like person who has regular licence to drive the vehicle. Otherwise also, because of non-observation of any condition, if it was there but has not contributed to the accident in the any manner, then also the Insurance Company cannot claim any immunity.

5.It is also submitted that since the appellant was the person having the driving licence to drive the vehicle, therefore, appellant was not required to prove that he complied with the condition of driving licence in a case where there is no allegation of violation of conditions of licence. At the most, the respondent Insurance Company could have taken specific defence about the violation of the specific condition which could have been met with by the appellant before the Tribunal, but since that specific defence was not taken before the Tribunal, therefore, the Tribunal committed serious error of law in exonerating the insurer. Had opportunity, would have been given to the appellant to meet with the objection, the appellant would have lead evidence to show that condition was not violated by him. Without making aware the respondent owner and claimant about the defence of the Insurance Company no plea could have been entertained by the Tribunal.

6.Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 Insurance Company vehemently submitted that even in view of the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Swarn Singh, it is clear that validly framed rules becomes part of the statute and such rules are, therefore, required to be read as part of main enactment. Rules provides for compliance of certain conditions by the driver having learners licence. Therefore, requirement of compliance of conditions of learners driving licence is mandatory and required to be followed strictly. It is also well settled principle of law that for the interpretation of the statute, an attempt must be made to give effect to all provisions under the rules. No provision should be considered as superfluous. The Rule 3 clearly provides that while driving a vehicle by the person holding learner licence, he should keep one person fully licenced to drive the vehicle with him and he should keep marked “L” on the vehicle.

7.I considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. It is not in dispute that owner of the vehicle-appellant himself was driver for the vehicle at the time of accident. He was having the learners licence. The Honble Apex Court in Swarn Singhs case held that person holding learners licence, thus, would also come within the purview of “duly licenced person”, as learners licence is also granted in terms of the provisions of the Act and rules framed thereunder. In view of the above, the appellant was duly licenced person to drive the vehicle.

8.So far as condition mentioned in the learners licence reminding the driver of the vehicle that he should keep one duly licenced person with him and should keep the word “L” on the vehicle is statutory requirements under Rule 3 of the Central Rules