PANDEY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, [988 (henceforth 'the Act') filed by the nsurance company, against the award of iamages to the extent of Rs. 63,600 and nterest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum tom 28. 11. 1994 in favour of respondent ^jos. 1, 2 (a), 2 (b), 2 (c) and 3. It appears :hat the respondent No. 2 (c) has died duirng the pendency of the appeal and, therefore, his name has been deleted. ( 2 ) THE Claims Tribunal had come to the ;onclusion that the appellant was liable to day damages to the extent of Rs. 63,600 to the claimants on the ground that accident occurred on account of the use of ractor-trolley. It was held by Claims Tribunal specifically that Naresh suffered spinal injuries when the trolley was being unloaded of the tiles contained in it. The :rolley was in a stationary position and a'as relatively steady at that time and then t turned turtle suddenly. It became unbalanced because on the back side of it :here was heavy load and Sunderlal who was the driver of the tractor, had taken out :he tiles from the front portion making the whole vehicle unbalanced. The tractor and trolley were standing on the undulating ground and the effect of removal of tiles from the front portion was that it turned turtle causing injuries to Naresh who died after suffering injuries. Naresh suffered fracture in the back portion and in the spine also. The accident has taken place on 28. 5. 1994 and Naresh died on 6. 11. 1994 while undergoing treatment. ( 3 ) ON these findings, the Claims Tribunal granted the aforesaid compensation drawing an adverse inference against the appellant. The Claims Tribunal rejected the argument that at the relevant time the driver was not having a regular driving licence and, therefore, the appellant was not liable. The Claims Tribunal found that respondent No. 4, Sunderlal was holding a learner's licence on the date of accident, i. e. , 28. 5. 94. But, it held that it was of no consequence as the vehicle was not being driven by the respondent No. 4, Sunderlal at the relevant time. It was in a stationary condition. Therefore, question of negligence by driving a vehicle does not arise. 5. 94. But, it held that it was of no consequence as the vehicle was not being driven by the respondent No. 4, Sunderlal at the relevant time. It was in a stationary condition. Therefore, question of negligence by driving a vehicle does not arise. ( 4 ) IN this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has produced before me a copy of the policy and also a copy of the certificate of insurance. The condition mentioned in the insurance certificate itself shows that both the tractor and trolley were insured from 18. 2. 94 till 17. 2. 1995. It is true that there is a condition that the persons including the owners are covered by the policy only when they are entitled to drive the vehicle by virtue of an effective driving licence and are not disqualified from holding such a licence. There is another proviso that a person who holds an effective learner's licence shall be authorised to drive the vehicle when he fulfills the requirements of rule 3 of the Central motor Vehicles Rules and does not use the vehicle for the purpose of transporting the passengers/goods. Learned counsel for the appellant says that the use of the vehicles in question by a person holding a learner's licence would not make the appellant liable under the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 5 ) ON the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 argued that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is correct. It has been argued that on the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal, it was not necessary for coming to the conclusion in respect of the liability of the appellant on the basis that the vehicle was being driven. The vehicle was in stationary condition and the conditions which have been mentioned in the certificate of insurance are concerned with the accidents when the vehicles are driven. ( 6 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that under the terms of the policy itself, an insurance company is liable to third party for death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the motor vehicles. So the liability here arose out of negligence in the unloading of the vehicle and not on account of negligent driving. So the liability here arose out of negligence in the unloading of the vehicle and not on account of negligent driving. The question of learner's licence would not be relevant for determining the liability of the appellant insurance company. The insurance company has not raised any defence that the vehicle in question was covered by proviso (A) to the aforesaid condition and, therefore, there is no question of considering that aspect of the matter in this appeal. ( 7 ) THE result is that there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500 (Rupees five hundred), if certified. Appeal dismissed. .