V. K. AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award dated 24. 1. 1995 in Claim Case No. 64 of 1991 (old No. 15 of 1986) by III Additional Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Sagar, whereby an award has been passed in favour of the claimant injured, respondent No. 1 herein, against the owner, respondent No. 2, the driver, respondent No. 3 and the appellant, the insurer of the vehicle. ( 2 ) IT is no longer in dispute that the respondent No. 2 Babulal Asathi is the owner of tractor No. CPV 7476, which was being driven on the date of accident, i. e. , on 28. 12. 1985 by respondent No. 3, pawan Kumar, as his employee. The claimant, respondent No. 1 herein, was travelling along with his family members and other persons in a jeep bearing registration no. MSQ 5918, which was driven by kallu Khan alias Abdul Karim. When the jeep reached near village Saurai, the said tractor CPV 7476 dashed against the said jeep. It is alleged that the tractor was being driven rashly and negligently by driver pawan Kumar, due to which the accident occurred. The claimant Raj Kumar sustained injuries in the said accident. He filed a petition under section 110-A of the motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in the said accident. The petition for claim was resisted by the non-applicants of that case, i. e. , the driver, the owner and the insurer. ( 3 ) THE present appellant insurer averred that the respondent No. 3, the driver, did not possess valid driving licence at the time of the accident. He only had a learning licence and, therefore, the appellant insurer is not liable to pay compensation as there was breach of terms of policy. ( 4 ) THE learned Tribunal, after recording evidence, held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor. It also held that the tractor driver had learning licence at the time of the accident. It was further held by the tribunal that since the driver, respondent no. 3 herein, possessed learning licence, it shall be deemed that he was holding a valid licence and accordingly, the liability to pay compensation was fastened on the appellant also along with the owner and driver of the said tractor. It was further held by the tribunal that since the driver, respondent no. 3 herein, possessed learning licence, it shall be deemed that he was holding a valid licence and accordingly, the liability to pay compensation was fastened on the appellant also along with the owner and driver of the said tractor. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the driver of the offending vehicle, i. e. , the tractor, was not holding a permanent licence, the appellant could not be made liable for payment of awarded amount of compensation, in view of the provisions of section 96 (2) (b) (ii)of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as also on account of breach of specific terms of the policy. Learned counsel relied upon new India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandar madhav Tambe, 1996 ACJ 253 (SC ). ( 6 ) HOWEVER, the learned counsel for the respondents has urged that the appellant insurance company has not examined the r. T. O. or any officer of the R. T. O. to establish that the driver of the tractor, respondent No. 3, did not hold any valid licence and, therefore, it could not avoid its liability of payment of compensation. Reliance, in this connection, has been placed by him on a Division Bench judgment of this court in United India Insurance co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Ashique, 1998 ACJ 589 (MP ). ( 7 ) IN the instant case, as noticed earlier, the learned Tribunal has recorded a finding on issue No. 7 that the driver, respondent no. 3, Pawan Kumar, was holding a learning licence, which was issued on 10. 12. 85, the copy of which was filed on record. It was also pointed out in para 33 of the impugned award that the said licence was valid up to 9. 3. 1986 and that the holder of the licence, i. e. , the driver, pawan Kumar was directed to appear for test after two months of the date of issue of the licence. Thus, on the date of the accident, i. e. , on 28. 12. 1985 the driver of the tractor was holding a learning licence only. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the driver of the tractor was holding a learning licence and not a regular licence. Therefore, non-examination of R. T. O. or any official from that office would not be material. 12. 1985 the driver of the tractor was holding a learning licence only. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the driver of the tractor was holding a learning licence and not a regular licence. Therefore, non-examination of R. T. O. or any official from that office would not be material. In view of the above, the case of united India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Ashique, 1998 ACJ 589 (MP), is distinguishable on facts, because the copy of the licence has been placed on record and has been duly considered by the Tribunal. In view of the above, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the respondent No. 3 Pawan Kumar was holding a learner's licence only and not holding a permanent licence appears to be wholly justified and does not call for any interference. ( 8 ) THEREFORE, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether there was a breach of condition of policy, and also as the driver was not holding a permanent licence, whether in view of the provisions of section 96 of the Motor Vehicles act, the appellant insurance company would be liable to pay compensation? The copy of the insurance is filed in the record of the Tribunal, which indicates that one of the terms of the policy regarding the person or classes of persons entitled to drive the insured vehicle was that it could be driven by the insured or any other person provided he is in the insured's employment and is driving on his order or with his permission, provided the person driving holds a valid licence to drive the vehicle or has held a permanent driving licence, other than a learner's licence and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. ( 9 ) IT is, therefore, clear from the above term of the policy that the driver of the insured vehicle should have a permanent driving licence, which did not include a learner's licence. In view of section 2 (5-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the 'driving licence' means the document issued by a competent authority under chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive a motor vehicle of any specified class or description. Section 3 of the said Act provides that no person shall drive a motor vehicle unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him. Section 3 of the said Act provides that no person shall drive a motor vehicle unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him. It is, therefore, clear that a valid driving licence under the Act would only be that, which is issued in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II of Motor Vehicles act, 1939. Consequently, a person who holds only a learner's licence cannot be treated as holder of a permanent driving licence. Therefore, in view of section 96 (2) (b) (ii) as also in view of the specific term of the policy as above, the appellant insurance company could not be made liable for payment of compensation as has been held in the case of New India Assurance co. Ltd. v. Mandar Madhav Tambe, 1996 ACJ 253 (SC), wherein it has been observed that a person having a learner's licence would not be regarded as duly licensed. The clause in the insurance policy makes it abundantly clear that the insurance company, in the event of an accident, would only be liable if the vehicle was being driven by a person holding a valid driving licence or a permanent driving licence other than a learner's licence. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, since there was a breach of term of the policy, inasmuch as the driver, respondent No. 3 Pawan Kumar, was driving it without holding a permanent driving licence; the fact that he was holding a learner's licence would make little difference, so far as liability of the appellant insurer is concerned. ( 11 ) IN view of the above, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The award as against the appellant is set aside. Appeal allowed. .