ORDER : Kuldeep Mathur, J. 1. The present civil misc. appeals under Section 173 of the M.V. Act have been filed by the appellants against the judgment and award dated 29.06.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Labour Court), Sri Ganganagar in Motor Accident Claim Case No.58/2017, whereby the learned Tribunal while holding the appellants jointly and severally liable to pay, passed an award for, an amount of Rs.8,91,664/- with an interest @ 7% p.a. with effect from 04.06.2015 till the date of realization of amount, in favour of the claimants. 2. The present appeals have been preferred against the findings recorded in issue Nos.2, 3 and 4 as arrived at, by the learned Tribunal wherein it was held that the driver of the offending vehicle, at the time of accident was holding only a learner’s licence. It was further held that the driver of the vehicle had breached the conditions of learner’s licence issued in his favour and, therefore, the insurer i.e. respondent No.6 cannot be held liable to satisfy the liability of paying compensation to the claimants. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively. It was contended that the impugned judgment and award dated 29.06.2022 has been passed without considering the facts and law applicable in the present case in their true perspective. To substantiate the above contention, it was submitted that admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of alleged incident was holding a learner’s licence and therefore it cannot be said that the insurer i.e. respondent No.6 is not liable to satisfy the liability. The insurer ought not to have been absolved from its liability merely for some technical breach of conditions of driving licence, if any. 4. Learned counsel urged that as a matter of fact, no evidence was led by the insurance company i.e. respondent No.6 before the learned Tribunal to prove the alleged breach of the terms and conditions of learner’s driving licence as enumerated under Section 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 by the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants thus prayed that the impugned judgment and award dated 29.06.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar in Motor Accident Claim No.58/2017 may be quashed and set aside or in the alternative, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue No.2, so far as to absolve the insurer i.e. respondent No.6 from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants, may be interfered with. 6. Per Contra, learned counsel Shri Mukul Singhvi appearing on behalf of the insurer submitted that from a perusal of the impugned judgment and award dated 29.06.2022, it is evident that at the time of the alleged incident the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of policy conditions of insurance policy and also in contravention to the mandatory conditions enumerated under Section 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989. The insurer has rightly been discharged from the liability to pay the compensation to the claimants by the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award dated 29.06.2022. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Perused the material available on record. 8. Section 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 is reproduced herein below for ready reference: “3. General. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Perused the material available on record. 8. Section 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 is reproduced herein below for ready reference: “3. General. - The provisions of sub-section *(1) of section 3 shall not apply to a person while 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 learners license issued to him in Form 3 to drive the vehicle; (b) such person is accompanied by an instructor holding an effective driving license 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: L Note.- The painting on the vehicle or on the plate or card shall not be less than 18 centimeters square and the letter L shall not be 10 centimeters high, 2 centimeters thick and 9 centimeters wide at the bottom: Provided that a person, while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving a motor cycle (with or without a side-car attached), shall not carry any other person on the motor cycle except for the purpose and in the manner referred to in clause (b).” The finding recorded by learned Tribunal qua issue No.2 is reproduced below for ready reference:- ^^fook|d la[;k&2 15- fook|d la[;k 2 dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj vizkFkhZ la[;k 3 chek daiuh ij FkkA chek dEiuh ds vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds ikl ojoDr nq?kZVuk oS/k ,oa izHkkoh MªkbZfoax ykbZlsal ugha Fkk dsoy yfuZax ykblsal Fkk vkSj yfuZax ykbZlsal gksus ds dkj.k /kkjk 3 dsUnzh; eksVj;ku fu;e 1989 dh vuqikyuk Hkh ugha dh xbZ gSA dksbZ izf'k{kd Hkh e`rd lat; dqekj ds lkFk cSBk gqvk ugha FkkA tks MªkbZfoax ykbZlsal izn'kZ Mh& 1 çLrqr fd;k x;k gS og nq?kZVuk dh fnukad 09-12-2014 ds i'pkr fnukad 17-12-2014 dk cuk gqvk is'k fd;k gSA blfy, chek i‚fylh dh 'krksZa dk mYy?kau gksus ds dkj.k mudh çfrdj vnk;xh dh dksbZ ftEesnkjh ugha gSA mä rdksZa ds leFkZu esa U;kf;d –"Vkar 2018 (1) ACTC (SC) 606 Amrit Paul Singh & Anr. Vs. Vs. Tata AIG General Ins. Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Tata AIG General Ins. Co. Ltd. & Ors. is'k fd;k x;k gSA tcfd blds foijhr vçkFkÊ la[;k 01 o 02 dk rdZ gS fd ojoä nq?kZVuk ç'uxr okgu pkyd vçkFkÊ la[;k 1 ds ikl yfuZax ykbZlsal Fkk mlds i'pkr mlus MªkbZfoax ykbZlsal cuk fy;k Fkk vkSj ijekusaV MªkbZfoax ykbZlsal] yfuZax ykbZlsal gksus ds mijkar gh fu;ekuqlkj cuk;k tkrk gSA xokg ,u-,-MCY;w- 3 iou dq ekj tSu es vius c;kuksa esa yfuZax ykbZlsal gksuks Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gSA blfy, fdlh çdkj ds dksbZ lcwr dh dksbZ vko;drk ugha gS rFkk MªkbZfoax ykbZlsal dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj Hkh chek dEiuh ij gksrk gSA dksbZ QaMkesaVy czhp Hkh ugha gS rFkk tks vkijkfèkd eqdnek MªkbZoj ds fo:) ntZ gqvk Fkk mlesa esa og nks"keqä gks pqdk gS rFkk okgu nq?kZVuk ds le; chfer FkkA vr% çfrdj Hkqxrku djus ds fy, chek dEiuh gh nk;h gSA mHk;i{kksa dks lquk x;kA i=koyh ,oa i=koyh esa çLrqr U;kf;d –"Vkarksa dk lEekuiwoZd voyksdu fd;k x;kA xokg ,u- ,- MCY;w-1 fo'kky lsfr;k tks fd okgu ekfyd gS mlus vius c;kuksa esa dgk gS fd nq?kZVuk esa vUrofyZr okgu chfer Fkk tks fd nq?kZVuk dh fnukad dks oSèk ,oa çHkkoh FkkA ftjg esa dgrk gS fd ;g dguk xyr gS fd MªkbZoj ds ikl MªkbZfoax ykbZlsal ugha jgk gksA ukudpan esjk MªkbZoj FkkA xokg ,u-,-McY;w- 2 ukud pan vius 'kiFk c;k;ksa esa dgrk gS fd esjs ikl oSèk MªkbZfoax ykbZlsal FkkA rFkk ifjoknh us nq?kZVuk ds le; tks eqdnek ntZ djk;k Fkk ftlesa mldks vihyh; U;k;ky; ,fM'kuy lS'ku tt] QkftYdk }kjk nks"keqä dj fn;k x;k gSA MªkbZfoax ykbZlsal ukud pan dh lwpuk çn'kZ Mh&1 gS A yfuZax MªkbZfoax ykbZlsal dh oSèkrk ckcr foHkkx ls vkj-Vh-vkbZ- esa çkIr lwpuk çn'kZ Mh&2 o mldk fgUnh vuqlkj çn'kZ Mh&2 , gSA xokg ftjg esa dgrk gS fd ;g dguk xyr gS fd ojoä nq?kZVuk esjs ikl oSèk ,oa çHkkoh Mªkbfoax ykbZlsal ugha jgk gksA eSa fo'kky lsfr;k dh QSDVªh esa equhe dk dke djrk FkkA dHkh&dHkh fo'kky lsfr;k dh dkj Hkh pyk ysrk FkkA xokg ,u-,-MCY;w-3 iou dqekj tSu chek dEiuh dh vksj ls çLrqr vius c;kuksa esa dgrk gS fd chek i‚fylh çn'kZ&,u-,- 3@1 gS ftldh çfr ,u-,- 3@1 , gSA dkj pkyd ds ikl oä nq?kZVuk oSèk ,oa çHkkoh MªkbZfoax ykbZlsal ugha Fkk cfYd yfuZax ykbZlsal FkkA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ikrs gSa fd vçkFkÊ la[;k 3 us MªkbZoj ds ikl yfuZax ykbZlsal gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA tks vçkFkÊ la[;k 2 ukud pan us MªkbZfoax ykbZlsal dh lwpuk çn'kZ Mh&1 çLrqr fd;k x;k gS mlds voyksdu ls ;g Li”V gS fd mä MªkbZfoax ykbZlsal ukud pan dk fnukad 17-12-2014 dks tkjh fd;k gqvk gS tcfd nq?kZVuk fnukad 09-12- 2014 dks gqbZ FkhA bl çdkj mä Mh-,y- dh vkjVhvkbZ dh lwpuk çn'kZ Mh 1 ds vuqlkj ukud pan MªkbZoj dk nq?kZVuk dh fnukad ds ckn dk tkjh fd;k x;k gS ,oa tks yfuZax ykbZlsal dh QksVks çfr Hkh çLrqr dh xbZ gSA tks lk{; esa çnf'kZr ugha gqvk gSA ysfdu çn'kZ Mh&2, VªkaliksVZ foHkkx }kjk yfuZax ykbZlsal dh vofèk tkjh gksus dh fnukad ls vkxkeh N % ekg rd dh gksuk tkfgj fd;k x;k gSA vçkFkÊ la[;k 01 ds fo:) l{ke U;k;ky; esa vkjksi i= varxZr èkkjk 279] 304 , Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ,oa /kkjk 181 ,e-oh- ,DV esa Hkh izLrqr gqvk gSA rFkk chek ikWfylh izn'kZ 3 ,&1 dk voyksdu djsa rks ikrs gSa fd mä chek i‚fylh dh 'krksZa esa Li"V :i ls vadu fd;k x;k gS fd "Any person including the insured provide that a person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. Provided also that the person holding an effective Learners License may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies the requirement of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989." bl çdkj chek i‚fylh dh 'krksZa ds vuqlkj yfuZax ykbZlsal okyk O;fä rc gh okgu pyk ldrk gS tc og dsUæh; eksVj;ku vfèkfu;e 1989 ds fu;e 3 dh ikyuk dj jgk gksA dsUæh; eksVj;ku vfèkfu;e ds fu;e 3 ds rgr okgu pkyd ds lkFk çf'k{kd gksuk o okgu ij ^,y* dk fu'kku yxk gksuk pkfg, FkkA ysfdu i=koyh ij miyCèk lk{; ds vuqlkj ,slh dksbZ lk{; i=koyh ij ugha gS fd vçkFkÊ la[;k 1 ukud pan okgu dks pyk jgk Fkk ml ij ,y dk fu'kku yxk gqvk Fkk rFkk mlds ikl dksbZ çf'k{kd Hkh cSBk gqvk gksA nq?kZVuk ds fnukad 09-12-2014 dks vçkFkÊ la[;k 1 MªkbZoj ukudpan ds ikl oSèk ,oa çHkkoh Mªkbfoax ykbZlsal ugha FkkA dsoy yfuZax ykblsal FkkA bl çdkj gekjs fouez er esa Li"V :i ls chek i‚fylh dh 'krksZa dk mYya?ku ik;k tkrk gSA tgka rd fo}ku vfèkoäk vçkFkÊ la[;k A o 2 dh vksj ls çLrqr U;kf;d –"Vkar AIR 2008 S.C. 1073 Premkumari Vs Prahlad Devi and 2017(1)DNJ (Raj.) 341 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Narayani & Ors. dk ykHk fn;s tkus dk ç'u gS rks gekjs fouez er esa vçkFkÊ la[;k 3 chek dEiuh }kjk çLrqr U;kf;d –"Vkar 2018 (1) ACTC (SC) 606 Amrit Paul Singh & Anr. Vs. Tata AIG General Ins. Co. Ltd. & Ors. çLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us chek 'krksZa dh mYy?kauk gksus ds dkj.k chek dEiuh dks çfrdj Hkqxrku ds fy, mÙkjnk;h ugha Bgjk;s tkus dk fl)kar çfrikfnr fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vçkFkÊ la[;k 1 o 2 dh vksj ls çLrqr mä U;kf;d –"Vkar vçkFkÊx.k la[;k 1 o 2 dks lgk;rk çnku ugha djrs gSaA bl çdkj ç'uxr okgu ds pkyd vçkFkÊ la[;k 1 ukudpan ds ikl oäoä nq?kZVuk dsoy yfuZax ykbZlsal FkkA tks fd nq?kZVuk dh fnukad 09-12-2014 dks oSèk ,oa çHkkoh MªkbZfoax ykbZlsal ugha FkkA ,slh fLFkfr esa chek i‚fylh dh 'krksZa dk mYya?ku gksus ds dkj.k chek dEiuh dks çfrdj vnk;xh ls eqä fd;k tkrk gSA vr% mijksä foospu ls ;g fook|d la[;k 02 vçkFkÊ la[;k 3 ds i{k esa r; fd;k tkrk gSA** The statements of NAW 3 – Pawan Kumar Jain, assistant, The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Sri Ganganagar recorded before the learned Tribunal on 09.04.2021 reads as under: ^^'kiFk fnykbZ xbZ nq?kZVuk esa fyIr dkj u- ih0ch0&22&ts&1080 dk chek fn- 01&7&2014 ls 30-6-2015 rd izHkkoh FkkA ikfylh comprehensive FkhA chek ikfylh izn'kZ & ,u,3@1 gS] ftldh izfr izn'kZ ,u,3@1, gSA dkj pkyd ds ikl oDr nq?kZVuk oS/k ,oa izHkkoh Mh0,y0 ugh Fkk] cfYd yfuZax ykbZlsUl FkkA ftjg }kjk fo}ku vf/koDrk Dyses.V Jh vkse ;kno ;g lgh gS fd oDr nq?kZVuk chek ikfylh izHkkoh gSA ;g lgh gS fd chek ikfylh ds rgr ;g nq?kZVuk covered FkhA ftjg }kjk fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k okLrs vizkFkhZ 1 o 2 volj fn;k x;k iqu% ijh{k.k Nil” 9. In the present case, it is not in dispute before this Court that the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing an effective and valid learner’s licence issued by the competent authority of the transport department as per the provisions of the MV Act, 1988. Since the Act of 1988, provides for grant of learner’s licence, 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 the person holding a learner’s licence is not entitled to drive a vehicle. 10. The proposition of law is no longer res-integra that the person who alleges a breach of the conditions, must prove the same. In the present case, the insurer i.e. respondent No.6 alleged before learned Tribunal that at the time of accident the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of Section 3 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The respondent No.6 was thus, required to establish the said breach by cogent evidence before the learned Tribunal. 11. Having carefully gone through the reply filed on behalf of the insurance company i.e. respondent No.6 before the learned Tribunal and the statements of NAW 3 recorded before the learned Tribunal on 09.04.2021, this Court finds that no material was produced before the learned Tribunal to prove the breach of conditions for driving a vehicle by the driver of the offending vehicle who was possessing a learner’s licence at the time of the incident. It is also to be noticed that no investigation with respect to the alleged accident which had taken place on 09.12.2014 between the offending vehicle having registration No.PB-22-J- 1080 and a motorcycle having registration No.PB-05-V-3122, resulting into demise of rider of the motorcycle namely Sanjay Kumar, was got conducted by the insurance company. 12. This Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the insurance company i.e. respondent No.6 in the present case has failed to establish/prove the breach of any of the conditions of learner’s driving licence or violation of any rules enumerated under Section 3 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 by the driver of the offending vehicle. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal qua issue No.2, 3 & 4 absolving the insurance company i.e. respondent No.6 from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants thereof cannot be sustained, deserves to be and is hereby quashed and set aside. 13. Accordingly, the present civil misc. appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 29.06.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Labour Court), Sri Ganganagar in Motor Accident Claim Case No.58/2017 is modified to the extent that the respondent No.6 i.e. insurance company shall pay the compensation to the claimants in the same manner and proportion as awarded by the learned Tribunal in its judgment and award dated 29.06.2022, minus the amount, if any, already paid to the claimants. 14. The amount of award shall be deposited by the insurance company with the Tribunal within a period of two months from today. 15. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.