JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant - Insurance Company is aggrieved against the judgment and award dated 15.5.2001 passed by the Workman Compensation Commissioner, Chittorgarh, whereby the appellant-Insurance Company has been held liable to make payment of compensation to the extent of Rs. 2,18,470/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident. 3. The facts in brief are that an application was filed on 23.8.1999 under Section 22 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 ('the Act') by the respondents herein Smt. Sugna Bai and Ms. Uma, wife and daughter of Shri Nand Lal Sharma inter-alia with the averments that their husband/father Nand Lal Sharma while driving the Tractor No.RJ-9R-4837 died on account of the said tractor turning turtle. The tractor belonged to one Tulsi Ram where he was working as a driver and the accident took place during the course of his employment and, therefore, they were entitled for compensation in terms of the provisions of the Act. 4. The application was replied by Tulsi Ram, the employer, who admitted that deceased Nand Lal Sharma was employed as driver on his tractor and as the tractor was insured with the appellant - Insurance Company, the Insurance Company was liable to make payment of amount of compensation. The age and salary of the deceased were admitted. 5. The appellant - Insurance Company filed reply and refuted the allegations made in the claim application. It was inter-alia submitted that the tractor was being used against the policy conditions and the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence and he was in possession of learner's licence only and, therefore, the appellant- Insurance Company is not liable to make payment of amount of compensation as claimed in the application. 6. On behalf of the claimants, PW-1 Smt. Sugna Bai, PW-2 Shankar Lal, PW-3 Mohan Lal, PW-4 Fateh Lal and PW-5 Hari Shankar were examined and on behalf of the appellant- Insurance Company DW-1 Arun Kumar Saxena was examined. 7. After hearing the parties, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that deceased Nand Lal Sharma died on account of the accident which occurred on 26.2.1999 while working under the employment of respondent Tulsi Ram : age and salary as claimed in the claim application were held at 24 years and Rs. 3,000/- per month respectively. 8. 7. After hearing the parties, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that deceased Nand Lal Sharma died on account of the accident which occurred on 26.2.1999 while working under the employment of respondent Tulsi Ram : age and salary as claimed in the claim application were held at 24 years and Rs. 3,000/- per month respectively. 8. While dealing with issue raised by the appellant-Insurance Company, the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was in possession of driving licence/learner's licence and the appellant-Insurance Company has failed to prove to the contrary and, therefore, it cannot escape from its liability. Ultimately, the Claims Tribunal awarded the sum as indicated hereinbefore. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that from a bare perusal of Exhibit-6, it is ex-facie clear that the deceased was in possession of only a learner's licence and was not in possession of any other licence and, therefore, the finding recorded by the Commissioner in this regard being contrary to the record deserves to be set-aside. 10. It was further submitted that the Commissioner fell an error in assuming a negative burden on the appellant - Insurance Company to prove that the deceased was not in possession of licence other than the learner's licence and, therefore, the award impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 11. It was further submitted that the provisions contained in Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 ('the Rules') have not been complied with and, therefore, on that count also, the said learner's licence cannot be taken into consideration. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Insurance Company v. Mandar Madhav Tambe & Ors., (1996) 2 SCC 328 in support of the said contentions. 12. Opposing the submissions, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submitted that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and as such, the same was not maintainable under Section 30 of the Act. It was further submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record that the deceased was in possession of learner's licence and while driving the tractor, the provisions contained in Rule 3 of the Rules were followed and, therefore, it is not open for the appellant - Insurance Company to raise any plea in this regard. 13. It was further submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record that the deceased was in possession of learner's licence and while driving the tractor, the provisions contained in Rule 3 of the Rules were followed and, therefore, it is not open for the appellant - Insurance Company to raise any plea in this regard. 13. Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 297 . 14. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 15. It is not in dispute that deceased Nand Lal Sharma was in possession of a learner's licence, which has been marked as Ex.6 at the time when he was driving the tractor. Mohan Lal PW-3 in his statement clearly stated that he was sitting alongwith the deceased in the tractor and was carrying water for his agricultural field. He also clearly stated that he was possession of a driving licence and also produced a photocopy of such licence on the record of the case. No cross-examination on this aspect was made as far as said Mohan Lal was concerned. 16. The Commissioner while considering the above aspect of the matter has recorded a finding that the tractor was being driven by Nand Lal Sharma alongwith Mohan Lal, who was in possession of valid driving licence and, therefore, it cannot be said that the provision of Rule 3 of the Rules had been violated. 17. Whether the vehicle was being driven in terms of the requirement of Rule 3 of the Rules or not and a positive finding is recorded by the Commissioner, in the firm opinion of this Court, the said finding would be essentially be a finding of fact and would not give rise to any substantial question of law. 18. So far as use of learner's licence is concerned, the said aspect is no more res integra in view of the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors. (supra), wherein three judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the case of Mandar Madhav Tambe cited by learned counsel for the appellant observed thus : "93. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for grant of learner's licence. (supra), wherein three judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the case of Mandar Madhav Tambe cited by learned counsel for the appellant observed thus : "93. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for grant of learner's licence. [See Section 4(3), Section 7(2), Section 10(3) and Section 14.] A learner's 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 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. 94. The provisions contained in the said Act provide also for grant of driving licence which is otherwise a learner's 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 learner's licence. Sections 8 and 9 provide for the manner and conditions for grant of driving licence. Section 15 provides for renewal of driving 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 licences granted in terms of the statute. A person holding learner's 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 thereunder. 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. 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 learner's 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 learner's licence issued under Rule 16 of the Motor Vehicles 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 same 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." In view of the above discussions, there is no substance in this appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******