V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE appeal is filed against the award dated 19. 8. 1998 in O. P. No. 103 of 1994 passed by the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District judge, Visakhapatnam. ( 2 ) THE appellant is owner of a scooter and was arrayed as respondent No. 3 in the o. P. The Tribunal passed award in favour of respondent No. 1 herein directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 39,200 with interest at 12 per cent per annum as compensation to the respondent No. 1 for causing injuries in motor vehicle accident. Respondent No. 1 filed the O. P. alleging that she was working as telegraphist and getting salary of Rs. 2,600 per month. On the fateful day when she was going home from office on her two-wheeler Luna, the respondent No. 3 herein came on scooter bearing No. AIV 4861 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her Luna as a result of which she sustained bone fracture on her right leg and crush injury to her right feet besides multiple injuries to her left feet. She was hospitalised for eight months and she incurred expenditure for treatment. She filed the O. P. claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000. The appellant and the respondent No. 3 contested the claim. The insurance company, respondent no. 2 herein, also opposed the claim. The insurance company mainly opposed the o. P. on the ground that the respondent No. 3 who was driving the scooter at relevant time was not having valid driving licence and that the insurance company has to be exonerated from liability under the policy. The appellant and the respondent No. 3 denied involvement of scooter bearing No. AIV 4861 and also denied allegation that the respondent No. 3 was not having valid licence. The Claims Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident occurred on 25. 9. 1993 due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. AIV 4861 by its driver which resulted in sustainment of the injuries to the petitioner? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so, to what quantum and from which of the respondents? (3) To what relief? ( 3 ) THE respondent No. 1 herein examined PWs 1 to 3 and marked Exhs. A-l to a-23. (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so, to what quantum and from which of the respondents? (3) To what relief? ( 3 ) THE respondent No. 1 herein examined PWs 1 to 3 and marked Exhs. A-l to a-23. An assistant in the office of the respondent No. 2 was examined as RW 1. The appellant examined himself as RW 3 and respondent No. 3 as RW 2. After considering evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the scooter bearing No. AIV 4861 was involved in the accident and that respondent No. 3 was not having valid licence. The appellant herein being owner of the scooter is vicariously liable and accordingly passed award. ( 4 ) IN this appeal, it is contended that the scooter of the appellant was not involved in the accident and that the insurance company cannot escape from liability merely on the ground that the respondent No. 3 was not having valid driving licence and that he was having only learner s licence. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for respondent no. 2, Mr. T. Mahender Rao has placed reliance on the evidence of PW 1 and Exh. A-4 in support of the contention that the scooter involved in the accident was owned by the appellant himself. He further contended that admittedly the respondent No. 3 was having learner s licence and, therefore, the respondent No. 3 was not having a valid driving licence as per the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act ). In that view of the matter, he would urge that the insurance company is not liable. He placed reliance on New India Assurance co. Ltd. v. Mandar Madhav Tambe, 1996 acj 253 (SC) and a judgment of this court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kes- avam Ramamurthy, 1998 ACJ 1115 (AP), in support of the contention that when a person drives the vehicle with learner s licence, the insurance company is not liable for such risk. ( 6 ) THE two points that arise for consideration may be considered one after the other. First question that falls for consideration is as to the identity of the scooter involved in the accident. It is no doubt true that in Exh. A-2 first information report given to Visakhapatnam I Town Police station she stated that the scooter bearing no. First question that falls for consideration is as to the identity of the scooter involved in the accident. It is no doubt true that in Exh. A-2 first information report given to Visakhapatnam I Town Police station she stated that the scooter bearing no. AIV 4861 dashed against her moped. In her evidence in cross-examination she categorically stated that scooter bearing no. AIV 4861 dashed against her moped. This is corroborated by documentary evidence, in the shape of Exh. A-4 which is report of Motor Vehicles Inspector who submitted a report on 15. 10. 1993 after making detailed inquiry. Therefore, the submission that the scooter involved in the accident does not belong to the appellant is devoid of any merit and is accordingly rejected. ( 7 ) THE respondent No. 3 herein was holder of learner s licence bearing No. 9069 B7/96 dated 26. 6. 1993 which is valid up to 25. 12. 1993 which is marked as Exh. B-2. According to the conditions of learner s licence issued under rules 3-A and 13 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, this is subject to provisions of rule 3 of Central Motor vehicles Rules, 1989. It is contended that the learner s licence is also valid driving licence. This submission cannot be accepted. Driving licence and learner s driving licence were defined separately under sections 2 (10) and 2 (19) respectively and they read as under:"2 (10) driving licence means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description. 2 (19) learner s licence means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description. " ( 8 ) A plain reading of the above would show that learner s licence specifically stands excluded from the definition of driving licence and, therefore, it does not include learner s licence. Further, the word used for defining the term is means . It is well settled that when the definition starts with the word means it has to be given restrictive meaning. Learner s licence authorising a person to drive motor vehicle cannot be equated with driving licence. Further, as per Exh. Further, the word used for defining the term is means . It is well settled that when the definition starts with the word means it has to be given restrictive meaning. Learner s licence authorising a person to drive motor vehicle cannot be equated with driving licence. Further, as per Exh. B-l policy, it does not cover use of insured vehicle for hire or reward and it also mentions the person or classes of persons entitled to drive the vehicle. As per the policy insured and any other person who is having driving licence and who is not disqualified to drive the vehicle is deemed to hold effective driving licence. The person holding a learner s licence under sub-section (19) of section 2 is disqualified by the very definition of driving licence as per section 2 (10 ). Therefore, there cannot be any hesitation to conclude that a person holding learner s licence cannot be said to have effective driving licence and he must be held to be disqualified to drive the insured vehicle. Though the appellant and the respondent no. 3 as RWs 3 and 2 respectively denied that the respondent No. 3 was not driving the vehicle, after perusing the evidence, it is not possible to accept the contention that respondent No. 3 was not driving the vehicle. In Kesavam Ramamurthy s case, 1998 ACJ 1115 (AP), this court considered similar question and held that learner s licence holder is not covered by insurance policy and that holder of learner s licence cannot be said to be a person having permanent licence mentioned in the insurance policy. The law may be taken as well settled that if the vehicle is driven by a person holding learner s licence contrary to the conditions of policy the insurer stands exonerated from its liability. ( 9 ) THE appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.