Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 31.3.2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, H.P., in Claim Petition No. 248/2005 (114/2004), titled Smt. Tara Devi and another versus Mast Ram and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.2,69,000/- alongwith interest @7.5% per annum came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and insurer was saddled with the liability, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 3. The claimants, owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus it has attained finality so far it relates to them. 4. The insurer has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the driver was not having a valid driving licence. The offending vehicle was Tata Sumo. Admittedly, the driver was having the licence to drive the light motor. This Court in FAO No. 125 of 2008 titled Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Smt. Amara Devi and others decided on 17.4.2015 and FAO No. 219 of 2008 titled United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Smt. Juma Devi and others decided on 14th August, 2015, has already held that the driver, who is having driving licence to driver light motor needs no endorsement to drive passenger vehicle. So it was valid driving licence. 5. The learned counsel for the claimants has also relied upon a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in case titled Kulwant Singh and others versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2015) 2 SCC 186 , wherein same principles of law have been laid down. It is apt to reproduce para 9 of the said judgment herein. “9.In S. Iyyapan, the question was whether the driver who had a licence to drive 'light motor vehicle' could drive 'light motor vehicle' used as a commercial vehicle, without obtaining endorsement to drive a commercial vehicle. It was held that in such a case, the Insurance Company could not disown its liability. It was observed: "18. In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. It was held that in such a case, the Insurance Company could not disown its liability. It was observed: "18. In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed grave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding the licence to drive the commercial vehicle. The impugned judgment (Civil Misc. Appeal No.1016 of 2002, order dated 31.10.2008 (Mad) is, therefore, liable to be set aside." 6. The second argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that the driver was having learner’s licence to drive the vehicle and was not competent to drive the offending vehicle. 7. Whether a person, who is holding a learner’s license, is competent to drive light motor vehicle came up for consideration in case titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh and others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1531, and it was held that a person having learner’s license is deemed to have been holding a valid and effective driving license. It is apt to reproduce paras 88, 89 and 90 of the said judgment herein: “88. 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. 89. 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. 89. 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 the 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 farmed 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 farmed 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 main enactment. It is also 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. 90. Mandar Madhav Tambe's case (supra), 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. 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 Vehicles Rules, 1939 having regard to the factual matrix involved therein. 8. This Court in FAO NO. 125 of 2008 titled Oriental Insurance Company Ltd versus Smt. Amra Devi and others decided on 17th April, 2015, FAO No. 703 of 2008 titled as Dinesh Kumar versus Trishla Devi and another, decided on 4.9.2015 and FAO No.322 of 2011 titled IFFCO-TOKIO Gen. Insurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Joginder Kaur & others, has laid down the same principles of law. 9. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the driver was having a valid and effective driving license. 10. Having said so, no interference is called for. The appeal is dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. 11. The insurer is directed to deposit the entire amount within six weeks from today, if not deposited, and on deposit, the Registry is directed to release the same in favour of the claimants, strictly, in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payee’s cheque account. 12. Send down the record, forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.