The main legal point established is the validity of a learner's license as a driving license under the Motor Vehicles Act and the liability of the Insurance Company in case of accidents involving such licenses.

Prakash Tatia, J.-At the request of learned Counsel for the parties, both these appeals are heard finally.

2. The facts of the case are that in an accident caused by Sadhu Singh (appellant in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 883/2004), a boy of 10 years died. The claimants were deceaseds father, mother and 7 brothers and sisters. The father of deceased died during the pendency of the claim petition. The claimants claimed total compensation of Rs. 6,50,000/-whereas the Tribunal after assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per annum, deducted 50% of the amount on account of the expenses which could have been required for the deceased himself , assessed the loss of income to the claimants of Rs. 7,500/- per annum. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 and thereby calculated the loss of income of the claimants to be Rs. 1,12,500/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,000/-to the mother and Rs. 1,000/-each to brothers and sisters for mental agony and for loss of love and affection on account of death of their son/brother. In addition to the above, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,000/- against expenses borne by the claimants for taking deceased to the hospital etc. and Rs. 2,000/-towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal in all awarded Rs. 1,25,500/-. The Tribunal after holding that at the time of accident, the driver of vehicle had the learners license which is not a valid driving license, exonerated the Insurance Company.

Hence, the driver cum owner of the vehicle has preferred S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 883/2004.

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 883/2004

3. According to learned Counsel for the appellant/owner/driver, the Tribunal committed error of law in not considering the appellants license Exhibit A-6 which is though learners license but is valid driving license issued under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the MV Act) and is good for all purposes. It is also submitted that this Court has already taken the view by following the decision of the Honble Supreme Court that the learners license is valid license to drive the vehicle issued under the provisions of law and, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability under the contract of insurance.

4. It is also submitted that the Insurance Company never took the defence that the appellant violated any of the conditions of the license as required by the M.V. Act or required to be followed as per Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (for short the Rules of 1989). It is also submitted that taking of defence by the Insurance Company is not sufficient but it was a duty of the Insurance Company to prove by evidence that the appellant violated any condition of the license. Thereafter, the burden would have shifted on the appellant to rebut the allegation. In absence of any allegation, the appellant was not supposed to narrate that he has complied with each and every condition of the license and condition attached by virtue of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1989. Without there being such defence, the Tribunal declared the appellant guilty of not following the rules.

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 951/2004

5. This appeal has been preferred by claimants for getting enhancement of the claim. According to learned Counsel for the appellants, the Tribunal assessed too low the income of the deceased and thereafter committed serious error of law in deducting 50% of the amount of the said assessed income on account of the expenditure for the deceased himself .

6. It is also submitted that the Tribunal committed serious error of law by not taking into account the future prospects of earning of the deceased. Apart from this, the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 2,000/

- tothe mother of deceased who lost his son at the age of 10 years only. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 1,000/-to the brothers and sisters which is also low.

7. Learned Counsel for the respondent Insurance Company vehemently submitted that the appellant was holding the driving li