JUDGMENT : Ram Mohan Reddy, J. The insured owner of the motorcycle aggrieved by the finding fastening liability to pay compensation by judgment and award dated 7th July, 2011 in MVC 753/2010 of the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sira (for short 'MACT'), has presented this appeal. 2. The appellant owner of the motorcycle bearing certificate of registration KA-06-EB-4524 having permitted her son by name Harsha to ride the motorcycle on 5.5.2010 dashed against a pedestrian by name Giriyamma aged 75, as a result of which, the pedestrian succumbed to grievous injury despite medical intervention. That Harsha, it was asserted, held a valid Learner's driving licence on the date of accident, valid from 5-1-2010 to 4-7-2010, and carried a pillion who held a valid and effective driving licence. The MACT, having noticed that the motorcycle did not sport "L" board on the front and rear number plate as required by the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, held that rider of the motorcycle violated provisions of law and therefore insurance company was not liable to pay compensation by the judgment and award impugned. 3. There is no dispute that the appellant-insured obtained a policy of insurance, Ex. R4, from the 1st respondent, wherein the clause relating to the driver reads thus : "Driver Clause : Any person including insured provided that the person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such licence, provided also that a person holding an effective learner's license may also drive the vehicle and that such person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989." 4. Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 (for short 'Rules') read thus : "3. General. Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 (for short 'Rules') read thus : "3. General. - The provisions of sub-section (1) of section 3 shall not apply to a person while receiving instructions or gaining presenting himself for a test of competence to drive, as 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 Iron and the rear, the letter "L" in red on a white background as under : L Note. - the painting on the vehicle or on the plate or card shall not be less than 18 centimeters squares and the letter "L" shall not be less than 10 centimeters high, 2 centimeters thick and 9 centimeteres wide at the bottom : 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). 5. The rider by name Harsha CT, held a learner's driving licence effective from 5.1.2010 to 4.7.2010 while the fact that the accident occurred on 5.5.2010 is not in dispute, hence clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules was complied with. 6. As regards clause (b) that rider is to be accompanied by an instructor holding an effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and such instructor should sit in such a position to control or stop the vehicle. RW.2. holder of driving licence when examined testified that he was the pillion rider accompanying Harsha instructing him in riding the motorcycle. That testimony of RW.2 is not discredited since the insurer though a party to the claim petition did not cross-examine RW.2. RW.2. holder of driving licence when examined testified that he was the pillion rider accompanying Harsha instructing him in riding the motorcycle. That testimony of RW.2 is not discredited since the insurer though a party to the claim petition did not cross-examine RW.2. Learned counsel for the insurer submits that RW.2 claimed to be the pillion rider is not in the FIR or in any legal document hence, the plea of the insured that RW.2 was not a pillion rider on the date of accident and the accident caused by the learner's license holder by name Harsha, does not satisfy the requirement of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules, is noticed only to be rejected. 7. As regards compliance with clause (c) over either painting in the front and rear of the vehicle or on a plate or card affixed to front and rear with letter 'L' in red on a white background, admittedly, was not found on the vehicle, hence non-compliance with clause (c) of the Rules. It is the submission of learned counsel for the insurer that clauses (b) and (c) of Rule 3 (1) of the Rules when not complied with, driver's clause would not come to the rescue of the insured. 8. If regard is had to the fact that the Learner's licence holder by name Harsha, held a valid and effective learner's licence as on the date of accident while riding motor cycle belonging to the appellant and on the pillion, RW.2, a holder of a permanent licence effective and valid as on that date was along with Harsha at the time of accident, in view of the testimony of RW.2, since not cross-examined by the Insurance Company, it cannot be said that there was non-compliance with clauses (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules. 9. It is true that the painting of letter 'L on the front and hind side of the motorcycle or on a white card affixed to the motorcycle in red, letter 'L' was not found. 9. It is true that the painting of letter 'L on the front and hind side of the motorcycle or on a white card affixed to the motorcycle in red, letter 'L' was not found. The accident occurred when the deceased was on the street walking ahead of the motorcycle and therefore, she would not have an opportunity to see whether the rider was 'L' board rider and the motorcyclists holding the Learner's licence having dashed against the deceased from behind, the non-compliance of clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules in the facts and circumstances, is irrelevant, so as to disentitle the appellant from claiming the indemnity against claims put-forth by the legal representatives of the deceased, in the light of the policy of insurance. So also, the insurer cannot but be held to be liable to pay the compensation. The reported opinions reference to which is made by the MACT in the judgment and award impugned have no application to the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, in the light of Driver's clause mentioned in the policy of insurance, supra. 10. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award impugned fastening liability on the appellant is set-aside and in all other respects remains unaltered. 11. The amount in deposit is directed to be refunded to the appellant.