Judgment ( 1 ) FIRST Appeal (No. 14/1999) is directed by the appellant (original respondent no. 2) United India Insurance Company Ltd. , being aggrieved by the award passed by the district Judge, Jalgaon, on 07-09-1998 in motor Accident Claim Petition No. 50/1992, thereby granting compensation total of rs. 2,95,200/- together with interest and, both: the owner and insurer, were jointly and severally made liable to pay the amount of compensation. The respondent No. 1 (original claimant) Smt. Lilabai Marathe is the widow and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 (original claimants nos. 2 to 5) are the children of one Ramesh marathe (deceased), who was serving as education Development Officer at Jalgaon. The Scooter (No. MVD 6455) was owned by respondent Ramesh Chindu Patil, who was friend of deceased Ramesh Marathe. They both on 17-02-1989 were riding on the Scooter, which was owned and driven by respondent no. 1 Ramesh Patil. Deceased Ramesh Marathe was the pillion rider. At about 3 p. m. the alleged accident occurred at 8 kms. away on jalgaon-Shirsoli road while, respondent ramesh Patil had drinen the Scooter rashly and negligently and, when he was negotiating with the curve on the road, the Scooter dashed against a guardstone. Both the riders of the scooter were thrown away from the Scooter. Ramesh Marathe did sustain head injuries and, later on, in Civil Hospital, Jalgaon, he succumbed to the head injuries. Therefore, the respondents (claimants) have filed petition for compensation before the Tribunal. ( 2 ) BOTH the respondents, owner and insurer of the Scooter, by filing their written statements, which are placed at Exhs. 34 and 31, respectively, denied the claim in the petition mainly on the ground that, the Scooter was not driven rashly and negligently. Secondly, the respondents (claimants) failed to establish the exact age and, monthly income of the deceased. The appellant Insurance Company denied their liability to pay the amount of compensation on the ground that, the said vehicle was driven in breach of mandatory provisions of law and, the terms and conditions of the policy. ( 3 ) THE learned Member taken the trial, heard the parties and, accordingly, awarded compensation to the respondents (claimants ). The appellant Insurance Company denied their liability to pay the amount of compensation on the ground that, the said vehicle was driven in breach of mandatory provisions of law and, the terms and conditions of the policy. ( 3 ) THE learned Member taken the trial, heard the parties and, accordingly, awarded compensation to the respondents (claimants ). The appellant Insurance Company, feeling aggrieved by the said award, preferred this appeal mainly on the grounds that, firstly, the learned Member did not properly appreciate oral and documentary evidence adduced on record and, therefore, arrived at wrong conclusion. Secondly, the learned Member should have held that, the original respondent no. 1, who is the owner of the vehicle and, who had driven the vehicle, did hold learners driving licence within the meaning of Section 2 (5a) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Thirdly. the learned Member was wrong in holding that, original respondent No. 1, owned and driver, held valid driving licence. Lastly, the order passed by the learned Member is not only contrary to the principles of law but, against the facts and circumstances brought on record. ( 4 ) MAY it be noted that, the facts mentioned hereinafter are not disputed by the other side or, may safely be taken as proved by the evidence on record: (i) That, the respondents (claimants) nos. 1 to 5 are the legal representatives of ramesh Marathe and, the relationship is not in dispute. (ii) The Scooter (No. MVD 6455) was owned by respondent No. 1 Ramesh Patil. (iii) On 17-02-1989, at about 3 p. m. the said Scooter was driven by respondent No. 1 ramesh Patil and, it met with an accident. (iv) Deceased (pillion rider) Ramesh marathe did sustain head injuries in the accident and, later on, he succumbed to the head injuries, in the hospital, on the same day. (v) During relevant time, respondent ramesh Patil held learners driving licence. (vi) The pillion rider did not hold any learners driving licence or, regular driving licence. Now, let us proceed further with this admitted position. ( 5 ) THERE is ample evidence on record, which will indicate that, the said accident occurred only because the Scooter was driven in great speed, by original respondent no. 1. Ramesh Patil. As he could not control the vehicle, on the curved road, it dashed against the guardstone and, accident occurred. ( 5 ) THERE is ample evidence on record, which will indicate that, the said accident occurred only because the Scooter was driven in great speed, by original respondent no. 1. Ramesh Patil. As he could not control the vehicle, on the curved road, it dashed against the guardstone and, accident occurred. The learned Member was right in holding that, the accident occurred only because of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the Driver. The learned Member also rightly held that, there was loss of dependency to the widow and children (claimant nos. 1 to 5), because of sudden death of the sole bread winner of the family, Ramesh Marathe and, rightly awarded the amount of compensation. ( 6 ) SHRI. Upadhye, learned Counsel for the appellants, argued that, the driver of the vehicle, Ramesh Patil did not hold valid driving licence and, secondly, the pillion rider Ramesh marathe did not at all hold driving licence. Such grounds are also taken in appeal memo. After pointing out all these things, it was also argued by the learned Counsel, in such circumstances, the appellant Insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation. Therefore, we have to consider the case of the appellant Insurance company in the light of the grounds taken in appeal memo. ( 7 ) SHRI. Upadhye, learned Counsel, argued that, the vehicle Driver Ramesh Patil did not hold valid driving licence. It was argued by Shri. Sabnis, learned Counsel for the other side that, the respondent Ramesh Patil did hold learners driving licence (Exh. 63 ). Section 3 of the Act makes it obligatory on the part of the Driver to hold effective driving licence, for the type of vehicle, which he intends to drive. Central Government, in view of Section 10 of the Act, prescribed forms of driving licence, for various categories of the vehicles. Accordingly, respondent Ramesh Patil applied for learners driving licence, in the prescribed form "i". Accordingly, he was given learners driving licence (Exh. 63) and, it was issued on 15-11-1988 and, it was valid upto 14-05-1989. The accident occurred on 17-02-1989. Thus, respondent Ramesh Patil held valid learners licence, on the date of the accident. After pointing out all these things, it was argued by shri. Accordingly, he was given learners driving licence (Exh. 63) and, it was issued on 15-11-1988 and, it was valid upto 14-05-1989. The accident occurred on 17-02-1989. Thus, respondent Ramesh Patil held valid learners licence, on the date of the accident. After pointing out all these things, it was argued by shri. Upadhye, learned Counsel, the Insurance company can be held liable, only when the vehicle in question was driven by a person, holding valid driving licence, other than learners licence and, in support of his contention, relied on the decision given by the apex Court reported in AIR 1996 Supreme court 1150 (New India Assurance Company ltd. Vs. Mandar Madhav Tambe and others ). It was held that, the Insurance company is not liable for paying the compensation, when the vehicle was driven by a person, holding learners driving licence. Therefore, in the present case also, the respondent Ramesh Patil driven the vehicle contrary to the provisions of Rule 16 framed under the Act and, therefore, appellant insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. The learned Member did not at all properly consider this aspect. ( 8 ) NOW, the next question arises for consideration is, whether deceased Ramesh marathe, who travelled as a pillion rider, held any driving licence at the time of accident. Rule 16 prohibits driver of the vehicle, holding learners driving licence, to drive such vehicle, if the person riding on the pillion seat does not hold valid licence, to drive the vehicle. Rule 16 (iii) reads as under :"there is besides the driver in the vehicle as instructor a person duly licenced to drive the vehicle and sitting in such a position as to be able to readily stop the vehicle. "there is nothing on record which will indicate that, deceased Ramesh Marathe, who was driving as a pillion rider, held any driving licence. Thus, the vehicle was driven by ramesh Patil, in contravention of the provisions of the Act and, the rules framed thereunder and, therefore, the appellant insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. The Member of the tribunal did not properly consider this aspect and, was wrong in holding the appellant insurance Company liable, to pay the amount of compensation. The Member of the tribunal did not properly consider this aspect and, was wrong in holding the appellant insurance Company liable, to pay the amount of compensation. ( 9 ) THE learned Member of the tribunal was wrong in holding the appellant united India Insurance Company liable to pay the amount of compensation. Therefore, to that extent, it is necessary to interfere in the finding and the order recorded by the learned Member. In the result, appeal partly succeeds. I pass following order. ( 10 ) FIRST Appeal (No. 14/1999) is partly allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Jalgaon on 07-09-1998 in M. A. C. P. No. 50/1992 is modified and, now. the respondent No. 6 (Original respondent No. 1) Ramesh Chindhu Patil to pay, compensation of Rs. 2,05,200/-, inclusive of No fault Liability amount, to the respondents nos. 1 to 5 (Original claimant Nos. 1 to 5), together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The claim against the appellant (original respondent No. 2) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is dismissed. The appellant United India Insurance co. Ltd. is at liberty to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle, if paid under the award. The First Appeal (No. 14/1999) is partly allowed accordingly. In the appeal, are parties are directed to bear their own costs. Appeal partly allowed.