Judgment :- This appeal is directed against order dated 4.1.1999 in O.P.No.5 of 1996 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool (in short, `the tribunal’) wherein the claim of respondents 1 and 2 was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.62,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition. 2. The first respondent filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of death of his son, the deceased Madanna, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 5.10.1995. Subsequently, the second respondent herein was impleaded as second claimant being mother of the deceased. According to the claimants, the deceased boy aged 8 years sustained grievous injuries on the head and face when jeep-bearing No.AP-9G-7962 dashed against him due to rash and negligent driving by its driver near Chakrala road of Pathikonda. It is further pleaded that the deceased was studying 4th class in Adarsha Vidya Petham, Yemmiganur by the date of the accident. 3. The third respondent herein (first respondent before the tribunal)/driver of the jeep remained ex parte. 4. The 4th respondent herein (Second respondent before the tribunal)/owner of the jeep and appellant herein (third respondent before the tribunal)/insurer of the vehicle filed counters opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay compensation. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent of the jeep bearing No.AP-9G-7962 belonging to 2nd respondent? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 6. PWs.1 to 3 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on the claimants’ side. RW-1 was examined and Ex.B-1 copy of the policy was marked on behalf of the respondent. 7. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the tribunal gave a finding on issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver. On issue No.2, the tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.62,000/-. The tribunal further held that the appellant-insurer failed to establish that the driver of the jeep was not having valid driving licence. On issue No.2, the tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.62,000/-. The tribunal further held that the appellant-insurer failed to establish that the driver of the jeep was not having valid driving licence. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition against owner and also insurer of the vehicle. 8. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company preferred the present appeal. 9. Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent are heard. Records are perused. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the driver of the jeep was having only learner’s licence and hence, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that there is no evidence on record to establish that the driver was having only learner’s licence and even otherwise, the appellant-insurer is liable to pay compensation, as the learner’s licence is also a valid licence. 12. The finding of the tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver is not seriously challenged. Even otherwise, the testimony of PW-2, one of the eyewitnesses coupled with the submissions in the F.I.R-Ex.A-3, charge sheet Ex.A-4 and Ex.A-5 M.V. Inspector’s report which show that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle go to show that the driver of the jeep was at fault. The finding of the tribunal in that regard does not call for any interference. 13. The other finding of the tribunal that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.62,000/- is also not seriously disputed. Even otherwise, having regard to the fact that the deceased was an young boy aged 8 years as can be seen from Post Mortem Certificate Ex.A-6 the amount of compensation awarded in a sum of Rs.62,000/- cannot be considered to be excessive or unreasonable. 14. The only question, which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the driver of the jeep was having learner’s licence and therefore the appellant-insurer is not liable to pay compensation? 15. In the written statement filed by the appellant before the tribunal, no specific plea is raised that the driver was having only a learner’s licence and it was not valid. 15. In the written statement filed by the appellant before the tribunal, no specific plea is raised that the driver was having only a learner’s licence and it was not valid. In the evidence, the appellant-insurer examined RW-1 Senior Assistant in their office at Kurnool who deposed that after the accident the insurer appointed private investigator and as per the report of the investigator, the driver of the jeep was having only learners licence bearing No.4493/10/94 dated 18.10.1994. Ex.A-5 M.V. Inspector’s report does not contain any particulars of the driving licence. According to RW-1, as per the terms and conditions of the policy Ex.B-1 learner’s licence is not an effective and valid licence and therefore the appellant-insurer is not liable to pay compensation. In the cross examination, RW-1 stated that one Onnuru Swamy was the private investigator appointed in the case. He does not know whether the said investigator obtained the original of learners licence from the jeep driver or not. The said Onnuru Swamy is not examined nor his report filed in to the Court. No documents were also summoned from the concerned office of the transport authorities to show that the driver was having only a learner’s licence. 16. In National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh (2004)3 Supreme Court Cases 297[1], the Apex Court held as follows: (i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. (iii)The breach of policy condition eg. Disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insurer for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, nare not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, nare not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) Insurance companies, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish “breach” on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefor would be on them. (x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of Section 149(2) read with sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the Tribunal”. 17. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Dhulipalla Prameela Devi and others 2007(1) ALT 107 (D.B), a Division Bench of this Court held: “Now, as held in Swaran Singh’s case (1 supra), the insurer can raise all available defences to avoid its liability, but must also establish `breach’ on the part of the insured, and the burden of proof of the same would be on the insurer”. In the above decision, it was further held: 37. However, so far as the second issue is concerned, i.e., who is to be asked to pay the compensation initially- Whether the insurer or the insured, it is already noticed that it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, but in most of the cases, particularly in cases like `no driving licence’, `fake driving licence’ or `inadequate driving licence’, which are violations under sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, have to be proved as violations attributable to the insured. 38. 38. As already pointed out, there is absolutely nothing on record as regards the failure on the part of the insured in allowing the vehicle to be driven by a person with `inadequate driving licence’. Therefore, it is not only improper and also contrary to the very spirit of the enactment to ask the claimants or their legal representatives to proceed against the insured seeking compensation for the injuries or the death, as the case may be, in a road accident.” 18. In the present case also, there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the driver was having only learner’s licence and it was invalid. The driving licence of the driver was not got summoned. The driver impleaded as first respondent before the tribunal is not examined. There is nothing on record to show that the owner of the vehicle allowed the driver to drive the vehicle without proper and valid licence and thereby consciously violated the terms of the policy. The policy Ex.B-1 stipulates that the person driving shall hold an effective licence at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such licence. Except the testimony of RW-1 who has no personal knowledge, no other evidence is adduced by the appellant-insurer to establish their contention that the driver was not having valid driving licence. In the absence of the evidence of the insurer and relevant records from the concerned transport authorities, the said contention of the appellant-insurer remains totally unsubstantiated. 19. Section 3 of the M.V.Act declares that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him. Section 149(2)(ii) of the M.V.Act contemplates a condition excluding driving by a named person or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification. 20. In Swaran Singh’s case (1 supra), it was held “If a person does not hold effective licence as on the date of accident, he may be liable for prosecution in terms of Section 141 of the Act. But, Section 141 pertains to insurance as regards third party risk. A provision of a statute which is penal in nature vis-à-vis a provision which is beneficient to a third party must be interpreted differently. But, Section 141 pertains to insurance as regards third party risk. A provision of a statute which is penal in nature vis-à-vis a provision which is beneficient to a third party must be interpreted differently. It is also well known that the expressions contained in different provisions are ordinarily construed differently. The words “effective licence” used in Section 3, therefore cannot be imported into Section 149(2) of the Act. Moreover, the words”duly licensed” used in Section 149(2) are used in the past tense”. It was further held: “The provisions contained in the said Act provide also for the grant of a driving licence which is otherwise a learner’s licence. Learner’s 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 learner’s liences granted in terms of the statute. A person holding learner’s lience would, thus, also come within the purview of “duly licensed” as such a license is also granted in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 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 learner’s 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 learner’s licence, the same would run counter to the provisions of Section 149(2) of the said Act. If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner’s licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree”. 21. In the light of the above principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above decisions, the contention of the appellant-insurer that they are not liable to pay compensation as the driver was having only learner’s licence is untenable. In fact, the appellant-insurer failed to establish that driver was having only a learner’s licence. 21. In the light of the above principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above decisions, the contention of the appellant-insurer that they are not liable to pay compensation as the driver was having only learner’s licence is untenable. In fact, the appellant-insurer failed to establish that driver was having only a learner’s licence. Even otherwise, the appellant-insurer would be liable to pay compensation as a person having a learners’ license is to be considered as a person ‘duly licensed’ in terms of Section 149(2) of M.V. Act as laid down by the Apex Court. 22. In the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, the appellant –insurer is also held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation awarded by the tribunal. 23. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.