JUDGMENT : SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. The only issue which arises for consideration in the present appeal is, as to whether the insurer has proved that the driver of the vehicle, at the time of accident, was driving the vehicle in violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. 2. The insurer namely, Oriental Insurance Company Limited has assailed the impugned award dated 30.3.2013, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in MAC Petition No.67- MAC/2 of 2009, titled as Satvinder Singh v. Padma Devi and others, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,69,800/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum to the claimant (respondent No.1 herein). 3. On 5.1.2009, claimant was travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle No.HP-18A-1222. The vehicle met with an accident with the offending vehicle bearing No.DL-2CB-7703 driven by Tara Dutt (respondent No.7 herein), in which claimant sustained injuries. Hence, he filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 4. The fact that claimant Satvinder Singh sustained injuries is not in dispute. The fact that accident took place is also not in dispute. 5. The limited issue raised, at the time of hearing, is the correctness of findings returned on issue No.5, so framed by the Tribunal, which reads as under:- "5. Whether the vehicle, at the relevant time being was driven in contravention of terms and conditions of Insurance policy, as its driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same? OPR 8 6. The vehicle was insured and the insurer had indemnified that if the driver of the vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving licence, the insurer would stand indemnified. This is not in dispute. 7. Now in the instant case, respondent Tara Dutt was holding a Learner Licence. This fact is not in dispute. According to Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, learned counsel, this itself amounts to violation of terms and conditions of Policy. 8. In view of ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandar Madhav Tambe and others, 1996 (2) SCC 328 as reiterated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , it cannot be held that Learner Licence is not a valid driving licence. 9. Dr. In view of ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandar Madhav Tambe and others, 1996 (2) SCC 328 as reiterated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , it cannot be held that Learner Licence is not a valid driving licence. 9. Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has fairly invited my attention to the fact that alongwith Tara Dutt, one Shri Dherender Singh, who also was holding a valid driving licence, was sitting in the vehicle at the time of occurrence of the accident. 10. The Apex Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. National Insurance Company, (2013) 10 SCC 217 , relying upon its earlier decisions, has reiterated the position that onus to prove breach of terms and conditions of the Policy, is upon the insurer, which in the instant case, I find there is none. 11. Having considered the entire material, in my considered view, it cannot be said that findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No.5, with regard to breach of terms and conditions of Policy are illegal, erroneous and perverse or not based on correct and complete appreciation of material on record. 12. Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, present appeal is dismissed. The entire amount stands deposited by the insurer. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.