JUDGMENT : G.M.AKBAR ALI, J. 1. The insurance company has preferred the present appeal, challenging the liability on the following two grounds: (i) that the injured was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle; and (ii) that the driver did not possess valid and effective licence. 2. Since the liability is challenged, the factum of accident and quantum are not discussed. 3. The admitted facts are as follows: On 18.7.2007 at 8.10 a.m. the injured travelled in the goods vehicle which is a Minidor auto, bearing registration No. TN 25-E 7580, owned by the respondent No. 2 and insured with the appellant. The vehicle met with an accident and the injured suffered injury on the left hand and it was amputated. He filed claim petition before the Tribunal, claiming compensation. 4. The owner of the vehicle contested and the insurance company resisted the claim taking the two defences that- (i) the injured was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle; and (ii) the driver did not possess effective and valid licence. 5. Evidence was let in to show that the injured was a loadman. He had travelled in the Minidor auto to load the cantering materials and during that course, the accident had occurred. 6. The driver was also examined, who produced learner's licence to drive light motor vehicle. The insurance company also examined their Development Officer and RTO and produced the extract of licence. 7. The Tribunal found that the injured was a loadman, covered under the policy and the licence is a valid and effective licence and ultimately fastened the entire liability on the insurance company. Challenging the same, the insurance company is before this court. 8. Mr. C. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the insurance company, pointed out that the injured was a loadman and he is not supposed to travel in a goods carrier which is a Minidor. He also pointed out that even assuming that the injured is a loadman, there were no goods being transported in the vehicle and hence the insurance company is not liable. 9. The learned counsel further pointed out that driver is holding only the learner's licence which is not valid and effective to drive the transport vehicle. There is breach of policy condition and, therefore, insurance company ought to be exonerated. 10. On the other hand, Mr. 9. The learned counsel further pointed out that driver is holding only the learner's licence which is not valid and effective to drive the transport vehicle. There is breach of policy condition and, therefore, insurance company ought to be exonerated. 10. On the other hand, Mr. J. Rama-krishnan, learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle, pointed out that there is valid insurance policy covering the load man and the driver was in possession of valid licence and, therefore, the insurance company has to indemnify the owner. 11. The learned counsel also relied on a judgment reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), for the proposition what is a valid licence. 12. On the other hand, Mr. S. Umapathy, learned counsel for the claimant, pointed out that the injured is suffering who had lost his left hand in the accident and strives to make a living and it will be very difficult for the claimants to recover from the owner and the insurance company is liable to pay. 13. Heard and perused the materials available on record. 14. As far as the policy is concerned, there is a coverage for the load man and it is evident that the injured had travelled as a loadman and, therefore, the insurance company cannot take a defence that the injured is a gratuitous passenger. 15. As far as licence is concerned, it is proved that the driver was holding learner's licence to drive light motor vehicle. It is admitted that the vehicle was not carrying the load and the unladen weight of the vehicle is below 700 kg making it a Minidor auto. Therefore, the said transport vehicle below the unladen weight can be treated as light weight vehicle as per the settled principles of this court and Apex Court. 16. However, the licence is only a learner's licence. In that event, the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), is applicable. 17. In para 86 of the case-law, it is held as follows: "(86) 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. 17. In para 86 of the case-law, it is held as follows: "(86) 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 provisions of section 149 (2) of the said Act." 18. Further, in para 96, the Apex Court held as follows: "(96) It is, therefore, evident from the discussions made herein before that the liability of the insurance company to satisfy the decree at the first instance and to recover the awarded amount from the owner or driver thereof has been holding the field for a long time." 19. Applying the said principles, the insurance company, though has to be exonerated, can be directed to pay and recover from the owner. Even in the case of `no licence', though the insurer is to be exonerated, as per sections 149 (4) and 149 (5), insurer can be directed to pay and recover. 20. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The insurance company, though exonerated, is directed to pay and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The insurance company is entitled to recover the compensation as per the mode incorporated in para 7 of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan, 2004 ACJ 721 (SC), which is incorporated as follows: "For the purpose of recovering the compensation amount from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the concerned executing court as if the dispute between the insurer and the insured was the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal and as if the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. It may initiate a proceeding before the concerned executing court as if the dispute between the insurer and the insured was the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal and as if the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. A notice shall be issued to the insured to furnish the security for the entire amount. The offending vehicle shall be attached as a part of the security. If necessity arises, the executing court shall take assistance of the concerned Regional Transport Authority. The executing court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the insured-owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default, it shall be open to the executing court to direct realization by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property of the insured." 21. It is submitted that the insurance company has already deposited the entire award amount. Therefore, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire money. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are closed.