JUDGMENT : Ravi kumar, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 17.5.2010 in O.P.(MV) No.1690/2004 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The appellant, who is the owner-cum-rider of the offending vehicle-motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-18-3952, was the first respondent and the respondent herein was the second respondent, before the Tribunal. The claimant therein viz., K.K.Muhammed Rafi was a minor aged 14 years on the day of the accident and he, now became sui juris. He was a pedestrian. He was knocked down by the offending vehicle on 1.6.2004 at about 9.30 a.m. and on sustaining injuries, he was taken to Baby Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode. The injuries sustained in the said accident resulted in permanent disability and hence, he moved O.P.(MV) No.1690/2004 seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act'). Obviously, after appreciating the evidence on record and the rival contentions, as per the impugned award, the Tribunal granted Rs.1,84,120/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from 14.9.2004 till realisation. The Tribunal arrived at the finding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent/the appellant, and virtually fastened him with the ultimate liability to pay compensation. The Tribunal directed the second respondent/the insurer of the offending vehicle to, initially, pay compensation awarded along with interest and costs and then to recover the same from the R.C. owner-cum-driver, the appellant herein. It is in the said circumstances that the captioned appeal has been preferred by the appellant seeking modification of the award to the extent it fastened the ultimate liability on him and allowed the insurer the right to recover the amount of compensation after satisfying the award at the first instance. In short, it is prayed to modify the award by making the insurer liable to indemnify him and to set aside the judgment/award to the extent the insurance company is given liberty to recover the amount. In view of the nature of the relief sought for in this appeal, the appellant did not make the claimant a party to this appeal. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/insurance company. 3. In view of the nature of the relief sought for in this appeal, the appellant did not make the claimant a party to this appeal. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/insurance company. 3. In view of the nature of the grievance raised and the relief sought for in this appeal, it is absolutely unnecessary for us to deal with the conclusions and findings of the Tribunal with respect to the accident as also on the question of cause of the accident. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the appellant herein. The respondent/insurance company did not dispute the valid insurance coverage of the vehicle in question. Ext.B1 is the copy of the insurance policy. It is the common case that at the time of the accident, the appellant was holding only a learner's driving licence. Virtually, the Tribunal granted liberty to the insurer to pay and recover the amount of compensation taking note of the fact that the appellant was driving the motor cycle sans a person having a valid driving licence on its pillion. In short, it was found that the first respondent/appellant herein was solitarily driving the vehicle on the strength only of a learner's licence. It is a fact that, the learner's licence which is marked as Ext.B2, was valid from 22.5.2004 to 21.11.2004 and the accident occurred within a fortnight from its issuance, precisely on 1.6.2004. The Tribunal also found that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the appellant/the first respondent therein. The facts that the appellant was holding only a learner's driving licence at the time of the accident and that no one holding a valid driving licence was with him on the pillion of the offending vehicle viz., the motor cycle at the time of accident were not disputed before us. In other words, the findings to that effect by the Tribunal are not at all disputed before us. In the said circumstances, the question is whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening the ultimate liability on the first respondent-appellant and in granting liberty to the insurer to recover the amount after satisfying the amount awarded at the first instance in the factual matrix, in view of the relevant provisions of law and also enunciation of position of law. In the said circumstances, the question is whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening the ultimate liability on the first respondent-appellant and in granting liberty to the insurer to recover the amount after satisfying the amount awarded at the first instance in the factual matrix, in view of the relevant provisions of law and also enunciation of position of law. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal ought not to have taken the non-possession of a valid driving licence by the appellant at the time of the accident and the fact that he was riding the vehicle solely on the strength of a valid learner's licence as grounds to fasten the ultimate liability on the appellant and to allow the insurer to recover the amount awarded after effecting payment. The learned counsel for the respondent-insurer sought to sustain the conclusions, findings and directions of the Tribunal. 5. While considering the said issue involved in the case on hand, certain provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the M.V. Act') and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 framed thereunder, (for short 'the Rules') are to be borne in mind. Section 2(10) of the M.V. Act defines driving licence. It reads thus:- "Driving licence means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorising the persons specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description." (emphasis supplied) Sections 3, 9 and 14(1) of the M.V. Act read as follows:- "3. Necessity for driving licence.-(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor cab or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of Section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. (2) The conditions subject to which sub-s(1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government. 9. (2) The conditions subject to which sub-s(1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government. 9. Grant of driving licence.—(1) Any person who is not for the time being disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence may apply to the licensing authority having jurisdiction in the area- (i) in which he ordinarily resides or carries on business, or (ii) in which the school or establishment referred to in Section 12 from where he is receiving or has received instruction in driving a motor vehicle is situated. for the issue to him of a driving licence. xxx xxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx (2) xxxxxxx (3) If the applicant passes such test as may be prescribed by the Central Government, he shall be issued the driving licence. Provided that no such test shall be necessary where the applicant produces proof to show that - (a)(i) the applicant has previously held a driving licence to drive such class of vehicle and that the period between the date of expiry of that licence and the date of the application does not exceed five years, or (ii) the applicant hold or has previously held a driving licence to drive such class of vehicle issued under section 18, or (iii) the applicant holds a deriving licence to drive such class of vehicle issued by a competent authority of any country outside India, subject to the condition that the applicant complies with the provisions of sub-section(3) of section 8. (b) the applicant is not suffering from any disability which is likely to cause the driving by him to be a source of danger to the public, and the licensing authority may, for that purpose, require the applicant to produce a medical certificate in the same form and in the same manner as is referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8. Provided further that where the application is for a driving licence to drive a motor vehicle (not being a transport vehicle), the licensing authority may exempt the applicant from the test of competence to drive a vehicle prescribed under this sub-section, if the applicant possesses a driving certificate issued by any institution recognised in this behalf by the State Government.] 14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles.- (1) A learner's licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be effective for a period of six months from the date of issue of the licence." (emphasis supplied) 6. Section 2(10) of the M.V. Act would thus make it clear that the term 'driving licence' means a licence issued by the competent authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description. The fact that driving licence and the learner's licence are different and distinct is further evident from Section 6(2) of M.V. Act. Section 6(2) provides that no holder of a driving licence or a learner's licence shall permit it to be used by any other person. Going by Section 3, no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective 'driving licence' issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle. The term 'learner's licence' is defined under Section 2(19) of the M.V. Act as hereunder:- "(19) 'learner's licence' means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description." (emphasis supplied) 7. The expression 'driving licence' employed under Section 3 of the M.V. Act has to be understood bearing in mind the definition of the term 'driving licence' under Section 2(10) and its obvious difference with the expression 'learner's licence'. Section 5 also assumes relevance in this context. It reads thus:- "Responsibility of owners of motor vehicles for contravention of Section 3 and 4.—No owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit any person, who does not satisfy the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 to drive the vehicle." In the light of Section 5 of M.V. Act, if an owner or a person in charge of a motor vehicle causes or permits any person who does not satisfy the provisions either under Section 3 or Section 4 to drive a motor vehicle he is doing so at his risk. The provisions under Section 9 dealing with grant of 'driving licence' will also reveal that it is only after passing a test prescribed under the Act and the Rules that a person will be issued with a driving licence as defined under Section 2(10) of M.V. Act unless he is entitled to get exemption from test of competence to drive and the licencing authority granted exemption. In the light of the said provision, it can be said that going by Section 3, a person can drive a motor vehicle in any public place provided he holds an effective driving licence means 'driving licence' as provided under Section 2(10) and not under Section 2(19) of the M.V. Act. The learner's licence under Section 2(19) is issued, as is evident from the said section itself, solely to authorise the holder to drive the class of vehicle in public place, as a learner certainly, subject to the conditions prescribed by the Central Government. Rule 15(1) of the Rules is also very much relevant in this case. It reads thus:- "No person shall appear for the test of competence to drive unless he has held a learner's licence for a period of at least thirty days." Though Section 14 of the Act provides that subject to other provisions of the M.V. Act, a learner's licence will be effective for a period of six months from the date of issue of the licence, Rule 15 (1) of the Rules makes it abundantly clear that no such learner's licence holder will be entitled to appear for the test of competence to drive unless he holds the same for a period, at least, of 30 days. Rule 15(1) would thus reveal that law does not regard or recognise learner's licence holders competent to face a test of competence to drive a motor vehicle before the expiry of at least thirty days since its issuance. In other words, in the eye of law, no learner's licence holder could or would gain competency to drive the type of vehicle to which it relates within 30 days since the issuance of the learner's licence. Rule 15(2) contains the list of matters viz., (a) to (x) which an applicant for driving test has to satisfy the person conducting the test. Rule 15(2) contains the list of matters viz., (a) to (x) which an applicant for driving test has to satisfy the person conducting the test. A glance at such enlisted matters will undoubtedly reveal that the legislative concern is regarding the safety and convenience of other users of the public road such as pedestrians, drivers of other motor vehicles or cyclists. Obviously, such an applicant for licence should satisfy the person, who conducts the test that his driving through public place would not be a source of danger to the public. The provision for relaxation to the rigour of Section 3(1) of the M.V. Act made under Section 3(2) is intended only to enable a learner's licence holder to receive instructions in driving a motor vehicle subject to the conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government and Rule 3 of the Rules prescribes such conditions under clauses (a) to (c) therein. Certainly, since the learner's licence is also a licence issued in invocation of the powers under the M.V. Act and the Rules, a person, who is issued with a learner's driving licence, can also drive a vehicle in public place, but subject to the specific provisions under the Act and the Rules. Surely, in terms of the explicit provisions under the Act and the Rules, it is possible and permissible solely for the purpose of receiving instructions or for gaining experience in driving with the object of presenting himself for a test of competence to drive. The rigour of the provisions under Section 3(1) of the M.V. Act is relaxed in the case of a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle as per Section 3 (2) of the M.V. Act subject to conditions prescribed by the Central Government. In this context, Rule 3 of the Rules assumes relevance. "3. The rigour of the provisions under Section 3(1) of the M.V. Act is relaxed in the case of a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle as per Section 3 (2) of the M.V. Act subject to conditions prescribed by the Central Government. In this context, Rule 3 of the Rules assumes relevance. "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 font 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 centimetres squares and the letter "L" shall not be less than 10 centimetres high, 2 centimetres thick and 9 centimetres 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)." (emphasis added) 8. Going by the mandate under Rule 3, the holder of an effective learner's licence could drive a vehicle in public place provided he 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 thus, obviously, as a learner. Clause (b) of Rule 3 of the Rules mandating accompaniment of an instructor holding an effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and its latter limb requiring such instructor to sit in such a position to control or stop the vehicle, will again underline the avowed intention of the legislature to ensure safety of other users of the public road. Clause (b) of Rule 3 of the Rules mandating accompaniment of an instructor holding an effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and its latter limb requiring such instructor to sit in such a position to control or stop the vehicle, will again underline the avowed intention of the legislature to ensure safety of other users of the public road. With the ever increasing use of motor vehicles as indispensable conveyance the rate of road accidents causing bodily injuries, damage to properties and also death is also on the rise at an alarming pace. Scrupulous adherence to the statutory provisions enacted to ensure public safety has to be insisted and observed to check the loss of precious lives and creation of disabled, in our country. Before dealing further with the legal issues, we think it appropriate to refer to the conditions incorporated in Ext.B1 certificate of insurance and Ext.B2 copy of learner's licence, as well. Ext.B2 is the copy of the learner's licence wherein it was specifically stated thus:- VERNACULAR MATTER In Ext.B1, insurance policy, the following condition relating person or classes of persons entitled to drive has been incorporated. It reads thus:- "Any person including insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. Provided also that the person holding an effective Learner's' Licence may also drive the vehicle and such a person satisfies with the requirements of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rule, 1989." (emphasis added) The above extracted conditions assume relevance in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh [2004 (1) KLT 781 (SC)]. Virtually going by the said decision, incorporation of a condition in a policy to the effect that driving of the vehicle by a person holding only a learner's licence in public place for avoidance of the liability by the insurer would run counter to the provisions under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 149. In other words, the Hon'ble Apex Court found that the holder of a learner's licence is also entitled to drive a motor vehicle since such a licence is also issued by an authority under the Act and the Rules to enable such a person to drive a particular class of vehicle in public place. In other words, the Hon'ble Apex Court found that the holder of a learner's licence is also entitled to drive a motor vehicle since such a licence is also issued by an authority under the Act and the Rules to enable such a person to drive a particular class of vehicle in public place. But, at the same time, a close scrutiny of the decision would reveal that in a case where there is violation of the specific conditions of the policy and also specific condition of the licence, it would confer a right to avoid the liability to the insurer in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 149 as against the insured owner though it may have to be made liable to satisfy the award as regards third parties initially. We will deal with that issue a little later. The above extracted conditions in Ext.B1 insurance policy and Ext.B2 learner's driving licence are perfectly in tune with the mandate under the provisions under Rule 3 of the Rules and Section 3(2) of the M.V. Act. The finding of the Tribunal that at the time of the accident, the appellant was not accompanied by an instructor as contemplated under the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules has to be appreciated in the light of all the aforesaid factual and legal positions. As already noticed, a person holding a learner's licence would be entitled to appear for the test of competence to drive only if he holds the same at least for a period of thirty days. In this case, Ext.B2 learner's licence held by the appellant was valid only from 22.5.2004 and much before the period of thirty days from 22.5.2004 viz., within ten days since its issuance, he drove the motor cycle in public place indisputably in violation of Rule 3(b) of the Rules. Can such persons be permitted to do so with impunity and sans any risk of liability? Whether such violators be told that they are doing it at their peril? 9. In Ext.B1 certificate of insurance, it is specifically mentioned that persons holding an effective learner's licence can also driver the vehicle provided such a person satisfies with the requirements of Rule 3 of the Rules. Whether such violators be told that they are doing it at their peril? 9. In Ext.B1 certificate of insurance, it is specifically mentioned that persons holding an effective learner's licence can also driver the vehicle provided such a person satisfies with the requirements of Rule 3 of the Rules. Rule 3 of the Rules, as extracted above, would reveal the requirements thereunder and indisputably, the appellant had not satisfied such requirements under Section 3(2) of the M.V. Act and Rule 3(b) of the Rules by riding the motorcycle in public road without an effective driving licence, but only on the strength of an effective learner's licence, without an instructor holding an effective driving licence sitting on the vehicle in such a position as contemplated under Rule 3(b) of the Rules hardly within ten days of its issuance. In such circumstances, it is evident that there occurred violation not only of specific conditions of policy and licence, but also of Rule 3(b) of the Rules and Section 3(2) of the M.V. Act. Above all, the finding of the Tribunal is to the effect that the claimant, who was then a pedestrian, was knocked down solely due to the negligence of the appellant in riding the motor cycle and as noticed here in before, the said finding is not seriously disputed. 10. True that in Swaran Singh's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that incorporation of a condition in a policy to the effect that driving of the vehicle by a person holding only a learner's licence for avoidance of the liability by the insurer would run counter to the provisions under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the M.V. Act. It was further held therein that even if a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner's licence, the insurer company would be liable to satisfy the award. True that it was also held therein that the reason that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident also could not be a reason to avoid liability by the insurance company. True that it was also held therein that the reason that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident also could not be a reason to avoid liability by the insurance company. But, in subsequent decisions rendered after referring to Swaran Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that though such a reason viz., driver was not having a valid driver's licence at the time of the accident is not available to the insurance company to avoid liability against the third parties and such a ground is available to be raised to avoid liability in terms of Section 149(2)(b)(ii) against the insured owner. [See the decisions in Ishwar Chandra v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [ AIR 2007 SC 1445 ], United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kunta Devi [AIR 2009 NOC 1407] and Ram Babu Tiwari v. United India Insurance Company [ (2008) 8 SCC 165 ]. 11. In Ishwar Chandra's case (supra), the driving licence of the driver expired on 27.8.1994 and the accident occurred on 28.4.1995 and till that date no application for renewal was made. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the insurer is not liable to indemnify the appellant owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. In Kunta Devi's case (supra), the driver's driving licence remained unrenewed on the date of the accident. It was held that the subsequent renewal would not relate back to the date of expiry and hence, the insurance company would not be liable to indemnify the owner. In Ram Babu Tiwari's case also the same position was restated. As stated earlier, those decisions were rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court after referring to Swaran Singh's case(supra). In all those cases, it was held that the ground that the driver was not having a valid driving licence would not be available to the insurer against the third party, but certainly it would be available against the insured owner, especially when the insured owner failed to discharge the statutory liability under Section 5 of the M.V. Act and in such circumstances, the Hon'ble Court upheld the order for pay and recovery. The case on hand, virtually stands on a lesser footing than those cases as in those cases the drivers concerned were having valid driving licences and the reason that went against insured owners, was that on the date of the accident, such drivers were not having valid driving licences. How can an owner permitting a person holding only learner's licence claim a better position that an owner, who permitted a person who originally had an effective driving licence, but lacking effective driving licence at the time of the accident? Here the appellant, who is the owner-cum-rider was not having a driving licence and he was having only a learner's licence. Going by Rule 3(b) of the Rules, holder of an effective learner's licence while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving with the object of presenting himself for a test of competence to drive, has to satisfy all the other conditions specified thereunder including the requirement to be accompanied by an instructor holding an effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and such instructor sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle. The purpose of relaxation of the rigour of Section 3(1) of the M.V. Act as per Section 3(2) is only for the aforesaid purposes. There can be no doubt that the purpose of granting a 'driving licence' is to authorise the person concerned to drive the class of vehicle concerned in public place in contradistinction to the purpose of authorising a holder of learner's licence to drive the motor vehicle as a learner. In the contextual situation some relevant aspects are worthy to be considered. Driving/riding a motor vehicle on any public place may cause fatal accident or bodily injury to both pedestrians and passengers inside the said vehicle or other vehicle/vehicles coming in its way. Hence a certain degree of expertise is required to drive a motor vehicle of any class or to ride a motor vehicle. If the insured owner fails to discharge the statutory liability under Section 5 of the M.V. Act, it should visit him with all inevitable consequences. In this context, in this case, the insured-owner himself violated all the aforesaid relevant statutory provisions though, in the light of the conditions in Ext.B1 certificate of insurance as also the condition in Ext.B2 learner's certificate, he was also to scrupulously follow the provisions under Rule 3 of the Rules. In this context, in this case, the insured-owner himself violated all the aforesaid relevant statutory provisions though, in the light of the conditions in Ext.B1 certificate of insurance as also the condition in Ext.B2 learner's certificate, he was also to scrupulously follow the provisions under Rule 3 of the Rules. In such circumstances, it can be safely concluded that the appellant had violated the conditions of policy as also the condition specifically incorporated in Ext.B2 learner's driving licence besides violating the provisions under 'the Rules' as also 'the M.V. Act' as mentioned above. Above all, in this case, the categoric finding of the Tribunal is to the effect that the claimant, who was a pedestrian, was knocked down or in other words, the accident was caused, solely due to the negligence of the appellant in riding the motor vehicle and as noticed hereinbefore, he rode the vehicle on that crucial day on the strength of a leaner's licence issued hardly ten days ago. In such circumstances, it can be said that the respondent herein, the insurer has succeeded in establishing that the appellant herein, who was the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle had violated not only the conditions of policy but also the conditions in the learner's driving licence on the strength of which he has driven the vehicle at the time of accident. In the light of the discussions, we do not find any illegality or error in the judgment of the Tribunal making the insurance company liable to pay the compensation to the third party and at the first instance and at the same time granting the insurance company the right to recover the amount paid to satisfy the award in favour of the third party, from the insured owner. In such circumstances, we do not find any legal infirmity or illegality or perverseness in the impugned judgment warranting an appellate interference. Consequently, this appeal is liable to fail and accordingly, it is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.