( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE short question raised in the present appeals is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant, namely, M/s Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. is obliged to pay the claimant. In order to appreciate the controversies it is necessary to give short facts. The appellant issued a comprehensive policy of insurance in favour of Respondent 1, in respect of a motorcycle which has met with an accident, covering the period between 13-11-1980 to 3-11-1981. On 7-8-1981 at about 5. 00 p. m. one Mr thimmappa Shetty, deceased, who was driving his scooter, met with an accident with the said insured motorcycle. On account of this accident, he succumbed to the injuries. Respondents 2 and 3 who are the widow and minor daughter of the deceased, filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of rupees four lakhs. The matter was contested. The stand of the appellant was that at the time of the accident Respondent 1 was not holding valid driving licence. Even the learners driving licence was for the period from 14-11-1980 to 13-5-1981 and thereafter fresh learners licence issued was from 14-8-1981 to 13-2-1982. Hence when the accident took place there was no licence, not even learners licence hence the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation in terms of the said policy. The Tribunal rejected this contention and awarded compensation of rs 75,000 fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. The Tribunal held that when licence was renewed, it would be deemed to have been renewed retrospectively with effect from 13-5-1981 when the first licence period came to an end. Aggrieved by this an appeal was preferred in the High court which was also dismissed. It is against this the present appeal has been preferred. ( 3 ) THE question raised in these appeals is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandar madhav Tambe. This Court relied on the specific clause of the policy, which provided that the person driving the vehicle must hold valid driving licence other than learners licence. Thus it held, the liability on the insurance company cannot be fastened even if a person holds a learners licence. Ltd. v. Mandar madhav Tambe. This Court relied on the specific clause of the policy, which provided that the person driving the vehicle must hold valid driving licence other than learners licence. Thus it held, the liability on the insurance company cannot be fastened even if a person holds a learners licence. In the present case, as we have recorded above, the accident took place on a date which falls between the two said periods of the learners licence. Thus it is not in dispute, on the day of accident, namely, on 7-8-1981 the driver of the motorcycle was having no licence, not even a learners licence. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for Respondent 1, on the other hand, contest this claim that even on the date of accident there was no learners licence. The submission is that on the date of the fatal accident, it would be deemed that there was learners licence when subsequently learners licence was renewed. However, for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal it is not necessary for us to enter into this controversy. Suffice it to say, even if Respondent 1 was having learners licence, in view of the specific clause in the insurance policy as aforesaid, the Insurance Company is absolved from the obligation to pay the compensation. The said exception clause is reproduced below:"provided that the person driving holds a driving licence at the time of the accident or had held a permanent driving licence (other than a learners licence) and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. " ( 5 ) IN view of its factual position and in view of the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. we hold that the appellant Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. ( 6 ) THIS Court on 26-4-1981 passed the following orders:"special leave granted. Mr Sharma has agreed that he shall deposit the entire compensation amount as directed by the Tribunal and even compensation amount shall not be recovered from the claimant. The amount is to be deposited within four weeks. No stay. " ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid order, the compensation which has been paid by the Insurance Company to the claimant shall not be recovered from the said claimant. The amount is to be deposited within four weeks. No stay. " ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid order, the compensation which has been paid by the Insurance Company to the claimant shall not be recovered from the said claimant. However, this is without prejudice to the rights of the insurance Company, if any, to recover the said amount from the owner in accordance with law. ( 8 ) WITH the aforesaid observation the present appeals are allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Costs on the parties. CA No. 5497 of 1997 ( 9 ) THE High Court has enhanced the amount of compensation. Any excess amount awarded by the High Court over and above that by the tribunal, shall be deposited by the Insurance Company within six weeks from today before the Tribunal, which may be withdrawn by the claimant. However, this is without prejudice to the rights of the Insurance Company to recover even this enhanced amount from the owner, namely, Respondent 1 in accordance with law. ( 10 ) WITH the aforesaid observation this appeal stands disposed of. Costs on the parties.