Judgment ( 1. ) THE Insurer has filed the present appeal dis-satisfied with award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chhindwara in Claim case No. 103/98, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,15,200/- for the death of one Ramesh. ( 2. ) ON 9-1-96, Ramesh, a student of class XIIth, aged 18 years, was going to his school situated at Saunsar on a motor-cycle. A Trax bearing No. MP22-B/4367, driven by Javed @ Pasha in a rash and negligent manner hit the motor-cycle. In the accident Ramesh suffered serious injuries and died in the hospital. Report of the accident was lodged and a criminal case was registered at crime No. 519/96 at the concerned Police Station. The Vehicle was owned by Bhaskar and insured with United India Insurance Company Limited. The deceased was earning Rs. 2000/- per month. ( 3. ) THE respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the deceased was not earning Rs. 2000/- per month. The Trax was not driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver Javed. He was driving it at a slow speed and his elder brother Jahid Khan, who is an experienced driver was sitting by his side and was guiding him. Negligence was that of the person driving the motor-cycle, which hit the trax owing to which the accident took place. There is no liability of the driver and owner and if any compensation is to be paid, that is to be paid by the Insurer. ( 4. ) THE Insurance Company took the plea that the trax was not insured with them on the date of the incident. The driver was not possessing a valid driving licence. The driver was having learners licence and as such he was not entitled to drive the vehicle alone. As per rules, it is mandatory that he should drive the vehicle only in the presence of a person who is able to control the vehicle and possessing a valid driving licence. Thus, the trax was being driven in violation of the conditions of the insurance policy and as such the insurance company could not be saddled with the liability to indemnify the owner. ( 5. Thus, the trax was being driven in violation of the conditions of the insurance policy and as such the insurance company could not be saddled with the liability to indemnify the owner. ( 5. ) THE Claims Tribunal has come to the conclusion that driver was possessing a valid learners licence and his brother was sitting by his side, who was possessing a valid driving licence and the accident took place owing to rash and negligent driving of Javed @ Pasha, the driver of trax. The income of the deceased has been assessed at Rs. 1200/- per month. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,15,200/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. ( 6. ) SHRI Sanjay Agrawal, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there was violation of Rule 3, of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The learned counsel pressed into service condition (b) of Rule 3, that a person possessing learners licence should be accompanied by an instructor holding an effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and such instructor should be sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle. The learned counsel submits that Javed was driving the vehicle and his brother Jahid Khan was sitting by his side not towards the brake pedal. Thus, the brother of the driver was not in a position to control or stop the vehicle at the time of the accident. He further submits that since Rule 24 also is attracted, which deals with the driving school and establishments. He has relied on Rule 24 Sub-rule (3), which reads as under :-24. Driving schools and establishments : (1) xxxxxxxxx (2) xxxxxxxxx (3) The licensing authority shall, when considering an application for the grant of renewal of a licence under this rule, have regard to the following matters : (i) xxx xxx (ii) xxx xxx (iii) xxx xxx (iv) xxx xxx (v) The vehicles are available exclusively for purposes of imparting instruction and all such vehicles, except motor-cycles, are fitted with dual control facility to enable the instructor to control or stop the vehicle; On the strength of the aforesaid Rule 24 (3) (v), the learned counsel submits that vehicle must be fitted with dual control facility to enable the instructor to control or stop the vehicle. Thus, the vehicle was driven in violation of Rule 3 and 24, of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. As such, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. ( 7. ) THE submission has been refuted by Shri G. S. Baghel, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 Javed and Pasha is the driver of the vehicle. He submits that Rule 24 is not applicable and there was substantial compliance of Rule 3. Hence, the liability of the Insurance Company has been rightly held to indemnify. ( 8. ) AFTER hearing both the counsel and perusal of the record and the evidence, it is clear that the accident took place owing to the rash and negligent driving by Javed, driver of the trax. From the deposition of Vijay CW/2, who is an eye-witness, the taking place of the accident by rash and negligent driving by the driver of the trax is established and deceased suffered serious injuries in the accident. Jeevanlal, CW-3, Assistant Sub-Inspector of the concerned police station, was also examined as a witness. He has seized the trax and has stated that the head light of conductor side and parking light were found broken. Thus, the taking place of the accident by the Trax in question stands established. ( 9. ) JAVED Khan has been examined as DW/1. He has stated that he was driving the Jeep/trax at the relevant time and was going from Saunsar to Mohgaon, and his elder brother Jahid Khan was sitting by his side and he was giving him the instructions. He possessed learners license Ex. D/1 at the relevant time. Licence - Ex. D/2 of Jahid Khan has also been produced. He has admitted that there was only one brake pedal in the Jeep/trax, on the drivers side, and Jahid was not in a position to stop the vehicle. Jahid Khan has also been examined as DW/2. He has also stated that he was sitting by the side of driver Javed in order to observe that he drives the vehicle carefully. He had asked Javed to take the trax towards one side at the relevant time of the accident. The vehicle was insured and its Policy Ex. D/3 was issued by United India Insurance Company. The Trax was only having one pedal which could be operated by the driver, namely Javed at the relevant time. He had asked Javed to take the trax towards one side at the relevant time of the accident. The vehicle was insured and its Policy Ex. D/3 was issued by United India Insurance Company. The Trax was only having one pedal which could be operated by the driver, namely Javed at the relevant time. ( 10. ) ON behalf of the Insurer, Ashish DW/3, who was working as Assistant Administrative Officer, has stated that the vehicle driven by a person with learners licence must have two brake pedal, and he has admitted that Insurance policy - Ex. D/3 was issued by United India Insurance Company, Branch Officer at Chhindwara. ( 11. ) RULE 3, of the Motor Vehicle Rules, is contained in Chapter 2 of the Rules. Rule 3 runs as under :-3. General :-- The provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 shall not apply to a person while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving with the object of presenting himself for a test of competence to drive, so long as (a) such person is the holder of an effective learners licence issued to him in Form 3 to drive the vehicle; (b) such person is accompanied by an instructor holding an effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and such instructor is sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle; and (c) there is painted, in the front and rear of the vehicle or on a place or card affixed to the front and rear, the letter l in red on a white background as under :-Note :-- The painting on the vehicle or on the plate or card shall not be less than 18 centimeters square and the letter "l" shall not be less than 10 centimeters high, 2 centimeters thick and 9 centimeters wide at the bottom: Provided that a person while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving a motor cycle (with or without a side-car attached) shall not carry any other person on the motor cycle except for the purpose and in the manner referred to in Clause (b ). ( 12. ) THE requirement of the rule is that a person driving the vehicle must have an effective learners licence to drive the vehicle in question. ( 12. ) THE requirement of the rule is that a person driving the vehicle must have an effective learners licence to drive the vehicle in question. It is also the requirement that such a person who is driving the vehicle under an effective learners licence must be accompanied by an instructor holding an effective driving licence to drive the vehicle, which is driven at the relevant time. Further requirement is this that such an instructor is sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle. The other requirement is fixing the letter - L in rear and front of the vehicle, as required under Rule 3 (c ). The specifications for the dimension of the letter L is mentioned in the Note, appended to Rule 3 (c ). ( 13. ) IT has not been disputed before us and rightly so in view of the overwhelming evidence on record that Javed possessed an effective learners licence at the time to drive the vehicle in question. It is also not disputed that he was accompanied by his brother Jahid Khan, who was possessing an effective and valid driving licence Ex. D/2 to drive the vehicle, involved in the accident, and he was sitting just by the side of the driver adjacent to him. The submission of the counsel that Jahid Khan was not in a position to control or stop the vehicle is totally unfounded. Since he was just sitting adjacent to the driver, he was clearly in a position to control or stop the vehicle. ( 14. ) THE learned counsel has emphasised that since there was only one pedal in the Jeep/trax and Jahid was sitting adjacent to the driver seat while Javed was driving, Jahid was not in a position to operate the brake and as such it could not said that he was in a position to control or stop the vehicle. The person who is an instructor obviously is expected to sit by the side of the driver at the time of giving instructions for the purpose of proper driving by a person possessing a learners licence. As there is no space provided between the driver seat and the seat window to permit accommodation of any instructor. The person who is an instructor obviously is expected to sit by the side of the driver at the time of giving instructions for the purpose of proper driving by a person possessing a learners licence. As there is no space provided between the driver seat and the seat window to permit accommodation of any instructor. Thus, the provision of Rule 3 (b) has to be interpreted and understood in the sence that a person must be sitting just adjacent in the available place on the other side of the driver, which was occupied in the instant case by Jahid Khan, and he has stated that he had tried to control the vehicle and had asked driver Javed to take the vehicle to a side of the road at the time of the accident. ( 15. ) THUS, we find the instructor was sitting in such a position to stop/ control the vehicle. If the instructor had committed negligence in not effectively controlling the vehicle or trying to stop it, that is within the periphery of inaction and for that purpose, the insurer cannot escape his liability. The substance being the condition of sitting of the instructor in a position to stop or control the vehicle has been established and it is established that he was possessing an effective driving licence. Thus, we find on facts, that mandate of Rule 3 (b), of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1988, has not been violated in any manner. ( 16. ) THE other part of the submission of the learned counsel based on the applicability of Rule 24, of the Motor Vehicle Rules, is devoid of merit. Bare reading of the above quoted Rule 24 leaves no room for doubt that it is applicable to the driving schools and establishments and the provisions of Rule 24 has no application when vehicle is not owned by driving school or establishment and driver is possessing the learners licence and is accompanied by an instructor, possessing an effective driving licence. In such an event, Rule 3 has independent applicability, and Rule 24 conditions does not come into play. Rule 24 conditions are to be observed by persons running driving schools or establishments, for imparting instruction, for hire or reward in driving motor vehicle. Such a person has to obtain licence to run such a school. In such an event, Rule 3 has independent applicability, and Rule 24 conditions does not come into play. Rule 24 conditions are to be observed by persons running driving schools or establishments, for imparting instruction, for hire or reward in driving motor vehicle. Such a person has to obtain licence to run such a school. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24, of the Rules, prescribes the consideration for licensing authority to be taken into account while granting or renewal of licence. ( 17. ) SUB-RULE 3 (v), of Rule 24, of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, requires that if the vehicles are available exclusively for the purposes of imparting instruction and all such vehicles, except motor-cycles, are fitted with dual control facility to enable the instructor to control or stop the vehicle. This requirement of dual control facility cannot be applied to the fact situation of Rule 3, as it is applicable only to the vehicle exclusively reserved for imparting instructions by a driving school and establishments which are require to obtain the licence on fulfilling the other conditions mentioned in Rule 24. The submission of the learned counsel that in order to have an effective control to stop the vehicle, such a condition must be read as part of Rule 3 is totally unacceptable, as Legislature has clearly made a departure of having dual control facility in the case of vehicles, except motor-cycle, used exclusively for imparting instructions. Such a requirement is not applicable to any other vehicle which is not owned and used by the driving school and establishments exclusively for the purposes mentioned in the Rule. ( 18. ) IN the result, we find no merit in the present appeal. The same is dismissed. As none had appeared on behalf of claimants respondents 1 and 2, we leave the cost on parties.