JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. All the three appeals are outcome of a common award dated 30th November, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I) Mandi, H.P., hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in different claim petitions filed by the claimants for grant of compensation, as per the break-ups given in the respective claim petitions, whereby the compensation came to be granted, for short ‘the impugned award’. 3. The insurer has questioned the impugned award only on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling it with liability. Thus, I deem it proper to determine all these appeals by this common judgment. 4. The only question to be determined in these appeals is-whether the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with the liability? The said question revolves around issue No. 3. 5. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence. The Tribunal has held that the offending vehicle was a ‘light motor vehicle’, and driver was having a learner’s licence to drive the same, was competent to drive the offending vehicle. It is apt to reproduce paras No. 38, 42 & 43 of the impugned award herein:- “38. The breach of the policy condition that the respondent no. 1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence is to be proved by the respondent no. 2, insurer. In the reply of the Insurance Company there is general plea that driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not having valid and effective licence. The Insurance Company has not taken any specific plea that what was the defect in the licence. It has not been pleaded that any person with effective and valid licence was not instructing the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The Insurance Company has not taken any specific plea that what was the defect in the licence. It has not been pleaded that any person with effective and valid licence was not instructing the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The Rule 3 is as follows:- “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 while background. 39 to 41. …………… 42. The Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in case rendered FAO (MVA) no. 594 of 2003 titled as National Insurance Company vs. Pyar Singh and others has held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants regarding the accident which has taken place when the vehicle was being driven by the driver having a learner’s licence to drive the light motor vehicle transport. The respondent No. 1, as such, was authorized to drive Tata- Sumo no. HP-01-M-3520 light transport vehicle on the date of accident. The amount of compensation on behalf of owner is payable by the insurance company. 43. The testimony of the respondent No. 1 Sh. Lalit Kumar RW-3 and Sh. Devinder Singh RW-4 that the respondent no. 4 who has having a driving licence to drive heavy transport vehicle copy whereof Ext. RC is valid during the period 21-10-2005 to 13-03-2008 and was sitting in Tata Sumo No. HP-01-M- 3520 with the driver i.e., the respondent no. 1 at the time of accident as such is not material. This issue is decided against the respondent No. 2. 6. The issue as to whether a person, who is holding a learner’s licence, is competent to drive light motor vehicle, came up for consideration in a case titled National Insurance Co. 1 at the time of accident as such is not material. This issue is decided against the respondent No. 2. 6. The issue as to whether a person, who is holding a learner’s licence, is competent to drive light motor vehicle, came up for consideration in a 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 licence is deemed to have been holding a valid and effective driving licence. It apt to reproduce paras 88 to 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. 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. 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. 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." 7. 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. 8. Viewed thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence. 9. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeals are dismissed. 10. The Registry is directed to release the entire amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque or by depositing the same in their accounts. 11. 9. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeals are dismissed. 10. The Registry is directed to release the entire amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque or by depositing the same in their accounts. 11. Send down the records after placing copies of the judgment on all the files of the Tribunal.