R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal exonerating the insurer-respondent No. 2 from the liability to indemnify the insured-owner of the vehicle on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle-appellant No. 1 was not holding a valid licence at the time of the accident. There is no dispute that the appellant-driver was holding a learners licence for driving heavy motor vehicle. The learners licence of the appellant No. 1 was produced by the insurer and exhibited at ex. 40 by consent of the parties. The Tribunal has held that the insurer company would not be liable when the vehicle was driven by a person holding a learners licence. ( 2 ) THEREFORE the question is whether the Tribunal was right in holding that when a driver holds only a learners licence at the time of the accident whether the Insurance Company would be liable to indemnify the insured owner. The policy ex. 41 contains following provision as regards driver:provided that the person driving holds a valid driving licence at the time of the accident or had held a permanent driving licence (other than a learners licence and is rot disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. EX. 40 is the learners licence and was valid and in force at the time of the accident. It is a licence issued under Rule 16 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules and it is valid in the State of Gujarat. The appellant No. 1 Maganbhai Sampatbhai Mali is licensed to drive as a learner heavy motor vehicle and this driving licence was valid upto 16th day of September 1980. It was issued on 17/03/1980. The accident had occurred on 11/05/1980. The vehicle in question was a motor truck (heavy motor vehicle) insured by its owner-appellant No. 2 with insurer-respondent No 2. The period of insurance was from 5 to 4-1-81. Thus on the date of the accident 11/05/1980 the policy was in force and the learners licence was also in force and the licence was valid throughout the State of Gujarat and the accident has also occurred in the State of Gujarat. ( 3 ) CHAPTER II of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for licensing of drivers of motor vehicles and sec. ( 3 ) CHAPTER II of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for licensing of drivers of motor vehicles and sec. 3 (1) reads as under:3 Necessity for driving licence : (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to himself authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a motor vehicle as a paid employee or shall so drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specially entitles him so to do. Sec. 7 deals with grant of driving licence and sec. 8. prescribes the form and contents of driving licence. Sec. 8 (2) provides for different classes of vehicles which entitles holder of the driving licence to drive that class of motor vehicle and Form D is in respect of driving licence. However these are the provisions for permanent driving licence Rule 16 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules provides for learners driving licence and it states that sec. 3 (1) of the Act shall not apply to any person driving motor vehicle in a public place during the course of his instructions or of any experience in driving with the object of presenting himself for the test required by see. 7 (6) of the Act. Rule 16 sub-rule (1) (i) to (iii) reads as under:16 Learners driving licence ;- (1) Sub-sec. (1) of sec. 3 shall not apply to any person driving a motor vehicle in a public place during the course of receiving instruction or of gaining experience in driving with the object of presenting himself for the test required by sub- sec. (6) of sec. 7 so long as (i) the driver is the holder of a learners licence in Form L Lr to these rules entitling him to drive the vehicle (ii) there is beside the driver in the vehicle as instructor a person duly licensed to drive the vehicle and sitting in such a position as to be able to stop the vehicle; (iii) there is affixed both to the court and rear of the vehicle a plate or card as set forth below: sub-rule (7) has been deleted with effect from 31/05/1979 and is therefore not applicable in the present case. Form L Lr of the learners licence is set out in the Schedule to the Rules. The present licence (ex. 40 is in that form. Form L Lr of the learners licence is set out in the Schedule to the Rules. The present licence (ex. 40 is in that form. It states that it is valid in the State of Gujarat and the classes of vehicles are shown in clauses (a) to (f) and the relevant applicable clause (c) refers to heavy motor vehicle. There is no separate learners licence for heavy passenger motor vehicle or heavy goods vehicle. There is only one category of heavy motor vehicle and there are no separate categories of goods or passenger heavy vehicles. The form of the application is also in the same way confined to one category of heavy motor vehicle. ( 4 ) THE contention of the respondent No. 2-Insurer is that the learners driving licence of the driver-appellant No. 1 cannot be said to be a valid licence for the purpose of insurance coverage and in any ease it was not a licence for driving a transport vehicle and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable under the policy. The relevant clause of the policy is quoted above. It is in two parts; namely: (I) the person driving holds a valid driving licence at the time of the accident or (ii) had held a permanent driving licence other than a learners licence and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. Thus at the time of the accident the driver is required to hold a valid driving licence and such licence is not necessarily a permanent driving licence. The second contingency is that at the time of the accident the driver had no valid licence in force but had in past held a permanent driving licence and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. Therefore at the time of the accident even though driver may not hold an effective driving licence but if he had held in past a permanent driving licence the Insurance Company would still be liable to indemnify the owner if such person without an effective licence is not disqualified from holding such a licence. But this condition of permanent driving licence is applicable only in case of a person who had held the permanent driving licence in the past and it was not effective at the time of the accident. But this condition of permanent driving licence is applicable only in case of a person who had held the permanent driving licence in the past and it was not effective at the time of the accident. At the time of the accident if the person has valid driving licence that is sufficient to attract the liability of the Insurance Company and such driving licence is not necessarily a permanent driving licence and a learners licence is not excluded. Learners licence is also a driving licence and a valid driving licence. It cannot be said that learners licence is not a valid driving licence. This driving licence which is valid not only having been issued by the competent authority under the law but also valid in point of time and place (valid at the time of the accident and valid at the place of the accident ). The accident had occurred on 11/05/1980 and the learners licence was valid upto 16/09/1980. The accident had occurred in Surat District in State of Gujarat and the learners driving licence is valid throughout the State of Gujarat. It is a licence to drive a heavy motor vehicle. The offending vehicle which is the insured truck is a heavy motor vehicle. Thus all the conditions of validity of a driving licence are fulfilled and the appellant No. 1-driver was holding such a valid driving licence while driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and therefore the Insurance Company cannot escape the liability to indemnify the insured in respect of the present claim. ( 5 ) IN the case of Public Prosecutor v. Albert See 1972 A. C. J. 381 the High Court of Singapore held in a Criminal Case where the accused was charged with an offence of using motor cycle without there being in force in relation to the user a policy of insurance in respect of third party risk. ( 5 ) IN the case of Public Prosecutor v. Albert See 1972 A. C. J. 381 the High Court of Singapore held in a Criminal Case where the accused was charged with an offence of using motor cycle without there being in force in relation to the user a policy of insurance in respect of third party risk. The accused was holding a driving licence which had already expired on 7/10/1969 and there being no L plates displayed on the front and rear and he bad a policy of insurance covering third party risk which was valid at the material date and the relevant clause read as follows:provided that the person driving is permitted in accordance with the licensing or other laws or regulations to drive the motor vehicle or has been 50 permitted and is not disqualified by order of a court of law or by reason of any enactment or regulation in that behalf from driving the motor vehicle. This clause is to some extent similar to the present clauses in the policy. The question of law reserved for consideration of the court was whether or not a learner driver who drives his motor vehicle whilst in possession of an expired provisional driving licence and who failed to display L plates or otherwise infringes the licensing rules or other regulations governing learner drivers is guilty of an offence under the Act ? and it was held that is a person drives even during the period when his provisional driving licence is in force his motor cycle on the road without displaying L plates he is not permitted in accordance with the rules to drive his motor cycle and therefore he has committed breach of the policy of insurance. In the present case there is no such breach of any rule or term of policy. The driving licence is in force and the Insurance Company has not proved breach of any terms of licence or of any rule. ( 6 ) IN the case of Chanchalben and Others v. Shailesh Kumar Pandurao Thakore and Others 1974 A. C. J. 393 the Division Bench of this court had an occasion to consider the expression the person driving holds a licence to drive the motor cycle and had held that it includes not only fully qualified and regularly licensed driver but it also means a learner driver. The relevant observations of the Division Bench are as under:the Form L Lr. appended to the said Rules also state that the applicant (who is to be named by him) is licensed to drive as a learner. Driving therefore is common both to a fully qualified driver as well as to a learner. Whereas a fully qualified driver drives a vehicle either for making an income or for pleasure as in the case of an owner-driver a learner drives a vehicle in order to learn driving. Therefore. both drive a motor vehicle with different objects in view. The difference in the objects with which they drive a vehicle cannot cloud the concept of driving in the case of a learner. For the reasons stated above we are of the opinion that the expression the person driving holds a licence tn drive the motor cycle means not only a fully qualified and regularly licensed driver but it also means a learner driver. Mr. Vakil has invited our attention to a passage in Fire and Motor Insurance by F. R. Hardy Ivamy 1962 Edition at p. 231 under the caption Licence includes Provisional Licence it has been stated that the expression licence includes a Provisional licence. The aforesaid observation made by the learned author has been based upon the decision of the Westminster County Court in Rendlesham v. Dunne: Pennine Insurance Co. Ltd. (1964) 1 Lloyds Rep. 192 In that decision Judge Herbert of the Westminster County Court has held that the meaning of the word licence cannot be restricted to full licence. Indeed his decision has been based upon Road Traffic Act 1960 of Great Britian. The scheme of the motor vehicles Act 1939 is largely similar to Road Traffic Act 1960 Mr. Vakil has also invited our attention to Road Traffic Offences by G. S. Wilkinson 5 Edition. At p. 196 it has been observed that the expression who holds or has held a driving licence includes a driver who has once held a licence even though such a licence was provisional. That observation has also been made by the learned author on the strength of the aforesaid decision of the Westminster County Court in Rendlesham v. Dunne. We have made reference to the aforesaid two books just to show that in matters which raise such questions there is identical thinking in England also. That observation has also been made by the learned author on the strength of the aforesaid decision of the Westminster County Court in Rendlesham v. Dunne. We have made reference to the aforesaid two books just to show that in matters which raise such questions there is identical thinking in England also. This ratio is clearly and directly applicable to the present case. It was also a case of a learners licence and Insurance Company was held liable to indemnify the owner due to the accident committed by the negligence of the learner driver. ( 7 ) IN the case of Ishwar Devi v. Reoti Raman and Anr. 1978 A. C. J. 340 the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court dealt with similar question on the following term in the policy:provided that the person driving holds a licence to drive the motor cycle or has held and is not disqualified for holding or obtaining such a licence. This clause was much wider than the clause in our policy. On the interpretation of that clause the learner licence was held to be a valid licence; even an expired learner licence was held to be a licence once held and the person is not being disqualified for obtaining or holding such a licence. In the present case the driver was holding a valid and effective learner licence. Therefore there is no need to go to the extent to which Allahabad High Court had to go but the fact remains that Allahabad High Court has also held that learner licence was valid driving licence. In the present case the policy also makes a distinction between permanent licence and provisional licence. A provisional licence is a learner licence and that risk is covered if at the time of the accident even if a driver holds only learner licence. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion it is clear that the appellant driver was holding a valid learner licence to drive heavy motor vehicle and therefore the risk of accident caused by such a driver is covered by the policy of Insurance and therefore the respondent No. 2 insurer is liable to indemnify the appellants to satisfy the award. ( 9 ) IN the result the appeal succeeds and is allowed and the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal insofar as it exonerates the Insurance Company-respondent No. 2 is quashed and reversed and the Insurance Company-respondent No. 2 is held jointly and severally liable so as to satisfy the award of Rs. 30 0 with running interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the application i. e. 16/07/1980 till the amount is deposited with the Tribunal with costs throughout. The second respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit with the Tribunal the entire amount of compensation with interest and costs of both the courts within three months from today. Out of the total amount of compensation costs and interest 1 of the amount to be paid to the claimant widow of the deceased Ramavtar by an account payee cheque in her name and rest of the amount shall be invested by the Tribunal in long term fixed deposit and the periodical interest shall be paid to the claimant periodically regularly by account payee crossed cheque in her name. The Tribunal shall see that the amount of compensation paid to her and the periodical interest is remitted to the claimant who is residing at a distant interior village in Bihar. Since the amount is required to be invested by the Tribunal there is no question of any loan or over-draft or other facility being availed on the said amount. ( 10 ) APPEAL is accordingly allowed with costs. ( 11 ) C. A. No. 1410 of 1984 is filed by the appellants for leading additional evidence. By this application an attempt is made by the driver and owner to lead additional evidence to show that at the time of the accident the driver was accompanied by another person holding a permanent licence. For that purpose reliance is also sought to be placed on the F. I. R. recorded contemporaneously showing the presence of Vasant Rao in the vehicle. The appellants propose to examine said Vasant Rao and to prove his permanent licence and his presence in the vehicle at the time of the accident This application is opposed by the Insurance Company. We also do not feel that it is necessary for the applicants to lead this additional evidence to enable the court to pronounce the judgment. The appellants propose to examine said Vasant Rao and to prove his permanent licence and his presence in the vehicle at the time of the accident This application is opposed by the Insurance Company. We also do not feel that it is necessary for the applicants to lead this additional evidence to enable the court to pronounce the judgment. The onus is on the Insurance Company to establish its defence. It is for the Insurance Company to show and prove that there was any breach of rule or condition of the licence or condition of the policy so as to exonerate the Insurance Company from the liability. The Insurance Company has not raised such contention and not led such evidence and therefore there is no question of recalling any such case and therefore this additional evidence is not at all necessary. The Insurance Company had already led the evidence in the trial court and also has this opportunity of cross- examining these additional witnesses. However the Insurance Company has chosen to oppose this application. We do not feel that this additional evidence is necessary to enable us to pronounce the judgment. Therefore this application is rejected. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. Rule discharged. .