JUDGMENT : Mr. Arun Bhansali, J. These cross appeals have been filed by the appellant - Insurance Company and claimants inter alia aggrieved by the common judgment & award dated 12/1/2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara, whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 85,425/- to claimant Abdul Rasheed and Rs. 81,660/- to claimant Raju and the appellant Insurance Company along with respondents Mohan & Harku has been held liable for payment of compensation. While the Insurance Company has sought its exoneration from the liability, the claimants are seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The applications for compensation were filed by Abdul Rasheed and Raju on 26/9/2007 and 27/9/2007, respectively, which were consolidated on 15/10/2008. It was averred in the applications that on 29/7/2007 the claimants were riding a Motor Cycle at about 7.15 a.m. towards Banswara when the non-claimant no. 1, Mohan, who was also riding a Motor Cycle No. RJ- 03-SA-7501 rashly and negligently, collided with their Motor Cycle resulting in the claimants falling down and suffering grievous injuries, which resulted in fractures, disability and defacement. Abdul Rasheed, who was working as driver with the Bus Depot, Banswara, was aged 40 years and was getting Rs. 8,000/- as monthly salary and he claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 23,98,000/-. Claimant Raju, who also suffered fracture, disability and defacement, indicated that he was aged 32 years and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month by way of manual labour and agricultural operations and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,86,000/-. 3. The non-claimants filed their response denying the averments made in the application. The Insurance Company also filed its reply and contended that the Policy conditions were violated as the driver of the offending Motor Cycle was not holding a valid driving licence. 4. Based on the averments, the Tribunal framed four issues. On behalf of the claimants, Abdul Rasheed, Raju & Dr. Sudhir Kumar Bhatnagar were examined and on behalf of Insurance Company two witnesses were examined. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of contributory negligence of both Abdul Rasheed and Mohan. While deciding issue no. On behalf of the claimants, Abdul Rasheed, Raju & Dr. Sudhir Kumar Bhatnagar were examined and on behalf of Insurance Company two witnesses were examined. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of contributory negligence of both Abdul Rasheed and Mohan. While deciding issue no. 3 pertaining to liability of the Insurance Company, on the plea raised by the Insurance Company that the driver Mohan was having a learner's licence (Ex.A/1) and the requirements of learner's licence were not fulfilled by the said driver, it was held by the Tribunal that as the Insurance Company did not indicated anything in its evidence regarding the driver not being accompanied by a Instructor holding an effective driving licence, the issue was decided against the Insurance Company. 5. While determining the amount of compensation in the case of Abdul Rasheed, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that for the physical pain and suffering, claimant Abdul Rasheed is entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and for the bills produced for treatment he was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,38,100/-, for attendant, during his hospitalization, a sum of Rs. 4,750/- was awarded, Rs. 1,500/- was awarded towards conveyance expenses and another sum of Rs. 1,500/- was awarded towards nutritious diet and in all Rs. 170,850/- was awarded to claimant Abdul Rasheed, however, the said amount was reduced by 50% on account of contributory negligence. 6. In the case of claimant Raju, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 81,600/- towards loss of income by taking his income at Rs. 2,000/- per month, age 32 years and disability at 20% and a sum of Rs. 60/- was awarded towards medical expenses, thus, in all a sum of Rs. 81,660/- was awarded as compensation to claimant Raju. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company that the Tribunal fell in error in holding the Insurance Company liable for payment of compensation inasmuch as the violation of Policy condition was apparent; driver Mohan was having a learner's licence and from the evidence it is apparent that he was not accompanied by any Instructor holding an effective driving licence, which is prerequisite in view of provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 ('the Rules, 1989') and which is also apparent from the driving licence, Ex.A/1. It is further submitted that the requirement of having effective and valid driving licence by the driver is pre-requisite for holding the Insurance Company liable for making payment of compensation and as the said condition has been violated, the Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation. 8. Reliance was placed on Rama Nand Pandey & ors. v. Nisha Tiwari & Ors., 2005 ACJ 1968 and P. Marudhachalam & ors. v. K. Sridhar & ors., CMA No. 2999 of 2010 decided on 16.6.2015. by Madras High Court. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent claimants while disputing the submissions made by counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submitted that the Insurance Company failed to lead any evidence to support its contention about violation of Policy condition and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding the Insurance Company liable. 10. Learned counsel for the non-claimants also reiterated the submissions made by counsel for the claimants in this regard and submitted that the learner's licence is valid and as there was no evidence on record to indicate the absence of trained Instructor, based on presumption, the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated. 11. Reliance was placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swarn Singh & Ors. 2004 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 270; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhagwani & ors. 2004 R.A.R. 69 (S.C.) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Arti Meena & ors., 2005 R.A.R. 277 (Raj). 12. Making submissions for enhancement of compensation, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in holding that there was contributory negligence on the part of Abdul Rasheed and that it also committed an error in not providing for loss of income during the period he remained hospitalized. Qua appellant Raju, it was submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in taking his monthly income at Rs. 2,000/-, which is excessively meager and, therefore, the same deserves to be enhanced. 13. Learned counsel appearing for non-claimants, submitted that the finding of contributory negligence is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and the claimants are not entitled to any enhancement of compensation. 14. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 15. 13. Learned counsel appearing for non-claimants, submitted that the finding of contributory negligence is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and the claimants are not entitled to any enhancement of compensation. 14. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 15. So far as the issue as to whether learner's licence issued under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act, 1988') and the Rules of 1989 is valid for driving a vehicle is concerned, the said aspect is no more res integra as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swarn Singh (Supra) has held that learner's licence is an effective licence as envisaged under Section 3 of the Act. However, submission of counsel for the Insurance Company has been that merely holding a learner's licence is not sufficient, the holder of learner's licence is required to comply with the requirements of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1989 before the Insurance Company can be held liable for making payment of compensation and in case the requirements of Rule 3 are not fulfilled, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1989 reads as under:- "3. General.- The provisions of sub-section(1) of section 3 shall not apply to a person while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving with the object of presenting himself for a test of competence to drive, so long as- (a) such person is the holder of an effective learner's licence issued to him in Form 3 to drive the vehicle; (b) such person is accompanied by an instructor holding an effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and such instructor is sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle; and (c) there is painted, in the front and the rear of the vehicle or on a plate or card affixed to the front and the rear, the letter "L" in red on a white background as under: ..... Provided that a person, while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving a motorcycle (with or without a side-car attached), shall not carry any other person on the motorcycle except for the purpose and in the manner referred to in clause (b)." 16. Provided that a person, while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving a motorcycle (with or without a side-car attached), shall not carry any other person on the motorcycle except for the purpose and in the manner referred to in clause (b)." 16. The provisions of Rule 3 require that a holder of learner's licence is required to be accompanied by an Instructor holding an effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and such Instructor is sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle. Proviso to Rule 3 provides that a person while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving of Motor Cycle shall not carry any other person on the Motor Cycle except for the purpose and in the manner referred to in clause (b). The provision of the Rule is very clear and the said condition of Rule 3 has been specifically incorporated in the driving licence, which has been produced as Ex.A/1. 17. From the evidence available on record, both Abdul Rasheed and Raju specifically admitted in their cross examination that non-claimant no. 1 Mohan was driving the Motor Cycle all alone. Once, the said evidence of both the claimants was available on record, the requirement indicated by the Tribunal regarding leading further evidence by the Insurance Company for the purpose of showing violation of Policy condition is wholly unnecessary and, therefore, unsustainable and statements of Abdul Rasheed and Raju are sufficient to come to the conclusion that non-claimant no. 1, Mohan, who was driving the Motor Cycle and was holding a learner's licence was not accompanied by Instructor holding an effective driving licence as required by the provisions of the Rule for making the said learner's licence an effective licence as required by the Policy condition. 18. Delhi High Court in the case of Rama Nand Pandey (supra) in similar circumstances came to the conclusion that if the driver holding learner's licence is not accompanied by an Instructor, there is a clear breach of condition of learner's licence and the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the liability to make payment of compensation. 19. In the case of P. Marudhachalam (supra), the Madras High Court also interpreted the provisions of Rule 3 and came to a similar conclusion. 20. 19. In the case of P. Marudhachalam (supra), the Madras High Court also interpreted the provisions of Rule 3 and came to a similar conclusion. 20. So far as the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the non-claimants are concerned, the judgment in the case of Swarn Singh (supra) deals with the fact that learner's licence is also a licence as envisaged by Section 3 of the Act, however, the said judgment does not deal with the aspect of consequence of violation of provision pertaining to learner's licence. The judgment in the case of Bhagwani (supra) simply follows the judgment in the case of Swarn Singh (supra) and in the case of Arti Meena (supra), the plea raised by the Insurance Company that learner's licence is not an effective licence was negated based on the case of Swarn Singh, however, violation of condition of learner's licence was not the subject matter. 21. In view of the above, the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue no. 3 pertaining to liability of the Insurance Company cannot be sustained and same is, therefore, set aside. 22. So far as the issue relating to contributory negligence of claimant Abdul Rasheed is concerned, it is apparent from the site map marked as Ex.4 that the claimants were approaching the main road from the side road and the non-claimant was going on the main road and when the claimants reached the main road, the accident occurred. The very fact that the claimants had entered the main road from the side road and did not take care regarding the approaching vehicle, which also was being driven rashly and negligently, it can be said that the accident with some vigil by the claimant himself could have been avoided and, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence does not call for interference. 23. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, I have gone through the evidence, oral and documentary, as led by the claimants. 24. In so far as the case of claimant Raju is concerned, no material was produced to support the claim of income of Rs. 6,000/- per month, when the mere claim was that he was a wager and was doing agricultural operations and it was also indicated that he was a BPL card holder and was working under Employment Guarantee Scheme. The income of Rs. 6,000/- per month, when the mere claim was that he was a wager and was doing agricultural operations and it was also indicated that he was a BPL card holder and was working under Employment Guarantee Scheme. The income of Rs. 2,000/- per month, as assessed by the Tribunal, does not call for any interference. Similarly, the disability of 20% as arrived at by the Tribunal is also in consonance with the evidence available on record. In view thereof, the compensation as awarded to Raju does not call for any interference. 25. In so far as the case of Abdul Rasheed is concerned, from the evidence of the claimants, it is apparent that he was working as driver with the Roadways and that his salary has not been affected, in fact the same has increased and, therefore, there was no question of any loss to the claimant on that count. However, for the period the claimant remained hospitalized i.e. for the period of six months, the claimant has sought compensation to the extent of Rs. 48,000/-, the Tribunal held that the claimant has not produced any material to show that the claimant remained on leave without salary, however, said determination cannot be sustained inasmuch as even if the claimant remained on paid leave, the very fact that his entitlement to paid leave was cut short and was reduced on account of the accident, the claimant is entitled for compensation under the said head and, therefore, the compensation awarded to claimant Abdul Rasheed deserves to be enhanced by a sum of Rs. 48,000/- and same would be subject to 50% reduction on account of contributory negligence resulting in effective enhancement of Rs. 24,000/-, the claimant is also entitled to interest @ 7% p.a. on the enhanced amount of compensation. 26. In view of the above discussion, SBCMA Nos. 1937/2011 and 1995/2011 filed by Insurance Company are allowed, SBCMA No. 1461/2011 filed by claimant Raju is dismissed and SBCMA No. 1504/2011 filed by claimant Abdul Rasheed is partly allowed. Both the claim petitions qua the appellant Insurance Company are dismissed, the non-claimants driver and owner of the offending Motor Cycle No. RJ-03-SA-7501 are responsible for payment of compensation to the claimants. Both the claim petitions qua the appellant Insurance Company are dismissed, the non-claimants driver and owner of the offending Motor Cycle No. RJ-03-SA-7501 are responsible for payment of compensation to the claimants. The appellant Insurance Company would be entitled to recover the amount paid/deposited by it under the provisions of Section 140 & proviso to Section 173 (1) of the Act and under the impugned award from the non-claimants (respondent Nos. 1 and 2). The claimant Abdul Rasheed would be entitled to a further sum of Rs. 24,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of filing of application i.e. 26/9/2007 till the date of actual payment from the non-claimants (driver & owner of the offending Motor Cycle). No order as to costs. Appeal Nos. 1937, 1995/2011 allowed and Appeal No. 146/2011 dismissed and Appeal No. 1504/2001 partly allowed.