JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Oral): - When this case was taken up today for consideration, Dr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant made prayer for admitting it. Per him, driver of the vehicle namely Abhinay Kumar Sood, was holding a learners licence", therefore, his client has been wrongly held liable for indemnifying the owner of the vehicle, i.e. Smt. Sushama Sood. According to him, valid and effective driving licence would not include learners licence, within its ambit. 2. With a view to support his this submission, Dr. Sharma placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandar Madhav Tambe and others, 1996(2) Supreme Court Cases 328. While further advancing the case of his client, he placed reliance on a recent three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National insurance Go. Ltd. v. Swarnn Singh and others, 2004(3) Supreme Court Cases 297. Reliance was also placed by Dr. Sharma on the provisions of Sections 2, 3, 7, 9 and 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. In order to test the soundness of this submission, reference is being made to the decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandar Madhav Tambe and others (supra). Its perusal clearly indicates that amongst other things, there was an exclusion of the vehicle being driven by a person holding learners licence. This is not the position when endorsement from the insurance policy, i.e. Ext. R-1, is examined. It clearly authorities a person driving on the basis of learners licence in case he satisfies the requirement of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. For ready reference, relevant ^endorsement from the policy of insurance, is extracted herein below :- "Person or class of persons entitled to drive -Any person including the insured provided that the person driving holds an effective driving licence "at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such learners licence may also drive the vehicle and such a person satisfies the requirement of Rule No. 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989." 4. On the face of this distinguishing fact, decision of the Supreme Court in Mandar Madhav Tambe (supra), is not applicable and does not advance the case of the appellant. 5. On the face of this distinguishing fact, decision of the Supreme Court in Mandar Madhav Tambe (supra), is not applicable and does not advance the case of the appellant. 5. To my mind, this matter is otherwise no more res Integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swarn Singh and others (supra). Supreme Court while dealing with different types of licences issued under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 specifically dealt with the vehicle being driven by a person holding learners licence. What is held and is relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal, is as under:- "93. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for grant of learners licence. (See Section 4(3), Section 7(2), Section 10(3) and Section 14). A learners licence is, thus, also a licence within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that when a vehicle is being driven by a learner subject to the conditions mentioned in the licence, he would not be a person who is not "duly licensed" resulting in conferring a right on the insurer to avoid the claim of the third party. It cannot be said that a person holding a learners licence is not entitled to drive the vehicle. Even if there exists a condition in the contract of insurance that the vehicle cannot be driven by a person holding a learners licence, the same would run counter to the provisions of Section 149(2) of the said Act. 94. The provisions contained in the said Act provide also for grant of driving licence which is otherwise a learners licence. Sections 3(2) and 6 of the Act provide for restriction in the matter of grant of driving licence, Section 7 deals with such restrictions on granting of learners licence. Sections 8 and 9 provide for the manner and conditions for grant of driving licence. Section 15 provides for renewal of driving licence. Learners licences are granted under the Rules framed by the Central Government or the State Governments in exercise of their rule-making power. Conditions are attached to the learners licences granted in terms of the statute. Sections 8 and 9 provide for the manner and conditions for grant of driving licence. Section 15 provides for renewal of driving licence. Learners licences are granted under the Rules framed by the Central Government or the State Governments in exercise of their rule-making power. Conditions are attached to the learners licences granted in terms of the statute. A person holding learners licence would, thus, also come within the purview of duly licensed" as such a licence is also granted in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed there under. It is now a well settled principle of law that rules validly framed become part of the statute. Such rules are, therefore, required to be read as a part of the main enactment. It is also a well settled principle of law that for the interpretation of statute an attempt must be made to give effect to all provisions under the rule. No provision should be considered as surplusage. 95. Mandar Madhav Tambe case, whereupon the learned Counsel placed reliance, has no application to the fact of the matter. There existed an exclusion clause in the insurance policy wherein it was made clear that the insurance company, in the event of an accident, would be liable only if the vehicle was being driven by a person holding a valid driving licence or a permanent driving licence "other than a learners licence." The question as to whether such a clause would be valid or not did not arise for consideration before the Bench in the said case. The said decision was rendered in the peculiar fact situation obtaining therein. Therein it was stated that "a driving licence" as defined in the Act is different from a learners licence issued under Rule 16 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1939 having regard to the factual matrix involved therein. 96. The question which arises for consideration in these petitions did not arise there. Neither was the name argued at the bar nor were the binding precedents considered. Mandar Madhav Tambe case, therefore, has no application to the facts of these cases nor creates any binding precedent. The view we have taken is in tune with the judgments rendered by different High Courts consistently. (See for example New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Latha Jayaraj)." 6. No other point is urged. 7. Mandar Madhav Tambe case, therefore, has no application to the facts of these cases nor creates any binding precedent. The view we have taken is in tune with the judgments rendered by different High Courts consistently. (See for example New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Latha Jayaraj)." 6. No other point is urged. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is disposed of after hearing the parties at the admission stage, because no case for its admission was made out on the basis of the discussion, referred to hereinabove. Consequently, this appeal is summarily dismissed. CMP No. 672 of 2004: 8. This application does not survive in view of the orders passed in the main appeal. Disposed of accordingly. -