JUDGMENT : Nawab Singh, J. This judgment shall dispose of aforementioned two appeals filed by United India Insurance Company Limited insurer of motor cycle bearing No. PB-06-J/0813 (for short 'the offending motor cycle') owned by Bal Krishan and driven by Kannan Raj against the separate Awards dated March 14th, 2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"), Gurdaspur. 2. The claimants were arrayed as respondents No.1 and 2 and driver and owner as respondents No.3 and 4 in FAO No.4761. In FAO No.4924 the claimants were arrayed as respondents No.1 to 3 and driver and owner as respondents No.4 and 5. 3. On January 9th, 2013 and April 29th, 2013 K. Kanan J. passed the following orders:- "Respondents 3 and 4 served. None appears. Set ex parte." "No steps taken for the respondents 1 and 2. Appeal against the respondents 1 and 2 dismissed." 4. On February 6th, 2010 two persons, namely, Som Nath and Joginder Pal were riding a bicycle. When they reached near T-1 Quarter, the offending motor cycle, driven by Kannan Raj in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit the cyclist. Both of them fell down and suffered multiple injuries and died on the spot. FIR No.9 was under Section 304-A etc. IPC was registered against the driver of the motorcycle in Police Station Shahpurkandi Palampur, District Pathankot. 5. The widow and children of both the deceased filed claim applications under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal. 6. In the case of death of Som Nath, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,36,056/- and in the case of death of Joginder Pal, a sum of Rs. 18,33,425/- was awarded as compensation. In both the claim applications, interest at the rate of 6% per annum was awarded. 7. In appeal before this Court, the solitary submission of learned counsel for the insurance company is that in view of Rule 3, Chapter II of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the terms & conditions of the insurance policy, the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the owner of the motor cycle because Kannan Raj driver of the motor cycle was holding a learner's licence and he was not accompanied by an instructor holding an effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. 8. 8. Indeed, Kanan Raj was holding a learner's licence to drive the motor cycle and car. The same was issued on February 1st, 2010 and was valid upto July 30th, 2010. The accident took place on February 6th, 2010. There is no evidence on record to show that Kanan Raj was not accompanied by an instructor holding an effective licence. Otherwise too, in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh and others 2004(2) RCR (Civil) 114, it was held by a full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- "89. 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 a vehicle when 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 provision of Section 149(2) of the said Act." 9. In view of above, the insurance company cannot take the defence that the learner's licence was not a valid licence. Thus, both the appeals are dismissed.