JUDGMENT : Bythis appeal the insurer assails the validity, propriety and legality of theaward dated 22nd April, 2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore , wherebyclaim of the respondent has been allowed in the sum of Rs .15,000/- with interest @ 6% and cost Rs . 500/-. 2.It is not disputed between the parties that the vehicle bearing No. MP-09 2719was insured for the period from 7-6-2006 to 6-6-2007 . During thisperiod when the respondent was proceeding on 3-11-2006 along with his wife on the pillion, he met withan accident resulting in damage to the vehicle. The respondent promptlyinformed the Insurance Co. about the damage sustained and for getting itrepaired he had to pay a sum of Rs . 1 5,000/-. Butsince the claim for reimbursement of the expenses was repudiated, complaintbefore the District Forum was filed. 3.The appellant (non-applicant) repudiated the claim of the respondent inter alia on the ground that since the driver of the vehicle washolding a learner's license, without a permanent license holder accompanyinghim, he was not permitted to ride in public place and therefore, on account ofthe explicit breach of the conditions of the policy, the insurer was not liableto pay the damages. The Forum below decided the case against the Insurance Co.,as mentioned hereinabove. Learned Counsel has raised solitary objection basedon the construction of law. He has invited our attention to 'Chapter II',captioned 'Licensing of Drivers of Motor Vehicles', the Central Motor VehiclesRules, 1989. The Forum below decided the case against the Insurance Co.,as mentioned hereinabove. Learned Counsel has raised solitary objection basedon the construction of law. He has invited our attention to 'Chapter II',captioned 'Licensing of Drivers of Motor Vehicles', the Central Motor VehiclesRules, 1989. Since the contention is based on construction of Rule 3, we deemit just and proper to reproduce the same, which reads as under: - "General.-The provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 3 shall not apply to a personwhile receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving with the objectof presenting himself for a test of competence to drive, so long as- (a) such person is the holder of an effective learner's licence issued to him in Forum 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 sittingin such a position to control or stop the vehicle; and (c)there is painted, in the front and the rear of the vehicle or on a plate orcard affixed to the front and the rear, the letter "L" in red or awhite background as under :- Providedthat a person, while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving amotorcycle (with or without a side-card attached), shall not carry any otherperson on the motorcycle except for the purpose and in the manner referred toin clause (b)." 4.In construing the proviso under Rule 3, learned Counsel submits that it isincumbent for the insured to ensure that a person who possesses a permament license accompanies the licensee holdinglearner's license. The proviso above referred shows that a person whilereceiving instructions or gaining experience to drive, cannot carry any otherperson on the motorcycle except for the purpose and in the manner referred toin clause (b). Rule 3 contemplates that a learner license holder is accompaniedby an instructor holding an effective driving license to drive the vehicle andsuch instructor is sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle.The inconsistency between this rule and the proviso is apparent, for the simpel reason that a person accompanying a learner'slicense holder in a motorcycle can hardly be in a position to control its speed,braking and stoppage. As a matter of fact, in our humble view a learner'slicensee driving a two wheeler if accompanied by an instructor holding aneffective driving license on his said vehicle would be hazardous as it mayresult in losing the balance. As a matter of fact, in our humble view a learner'slicensee driving a two wheeler if accompanied by an instructor holding aneffective driving license on his said vehicle would be hazardous as it mayresult in losing the balance. We are, therefore, of the view that the saidproviso is not workable to the motorcycle riders and therefore, we see noground to come to the conclusion that if a permanent licensee accompanying alearner's licensee on a two wheeler, it would be in consonance with the legalposition. Accordingly, we find that the amount Rs .15,000/-towards repair of the motorcycle is reasonable. This appeal is sansmerit and is dismissed.