HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO Review C.M.P.No.2870 of 2011 in C.M.A.No.3689 of 2003 Date: 02-09-2011 Between: Datla Ilaiah …… petitioner and Maturi Ilaiah and others ……. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO Review C.M.P.No.2870 of 2011 in C.M.A.No.3689 of 2003 ORDER: This Review Petition is filed seeking to review the judgment dated 30-04-2011 passed by this Court in C.M.A.No.3689 of 2003. The Review Petitioner is the appellant in the said C.M.A. 2. This Court, through the judgment dated 30-04-2011, dismissed the said C.M.A. confirming the findings of the Tribunal that the liability to pay compensation cannot be fastened against the third respondent-insurance company, and also confirmed the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the pleadings of the third respondent-insurance company in its counter in the O.P. that the driver of the offending vehicle had learners driving licence as on the date of accident and in view of such admission by the third respondent-insurance company as well as the evidence of RW-1, the Tribunal ought to have came to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle is having valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle on the date of accident and in support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD v. SWARAN SINGH[1]. 4. The learned counsel for the third respondent-Insurance Company supported the judgment of this Court, dated 30-04-2011 in C.M.A.No.3689 of 2003, and sought for dismissal of the review petition. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to review the judgment and decree dated 30-04-2011 passed in C.M.A.No.3689 of 2003? 6. As seen from the order, dated 30-04-2011, it was held that neither respondent No.1 nor respondent No.2 discharged their burden to show that the driver i.e., respondent No.1 has valid driving licence on the date of accident, and thereby the owner of the offending vehicle had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and hence the liability cannot be fastened on the third respondent- insurance company. 7. In the above decision relied on by the learned counsel for the review petitioner, it was held as under: “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 provisions of Section 149(2) of the said Act. The provisions contained in the said Act provide also for grant of driving licence which is otherwise a learner's licence. Section 3(2) and 6 of the Act provides for the restriction in the matter of grant of driving licence, Section 7 deals with such restrictions on granting of learner's licence. Section 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 framed 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 framed 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.” 8. A perusal of the pleadings in particular the counter filed by the third respondent-insurance company in O.P.No.64 of 1999 and also the evidence adduced on behalf of the third respondent-insurance company about the possession of learners licence by the driver of the offending vehicle on the date of accident, it is clear that the driver and owner of the offending vehicle have discharged their burden in proving that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid driving licence in the form of learners licence on the date of accident. Therefore, this Court erred in not considering the admission of the third respondent- insurance company about the possession of learners driving licence by the driver of the offending vehicle on the date of accident, and in view of such admission, the third respondent-insurance company is precluded from pleading contrary to the same and as such, the driver of the offending vehicle had valid learners driving licence on the date of accident. 9. In view of the evidence adduced by the third respondent- insurance company and placing reliance on the above decision of the Apex Court, it is held that the third respondent-insurance company is also liable to indemnify the compensation payable to the claimant along with respondent Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, in view of fastening the liability against the third respondent-insurance company, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 10. Accordingly, the Review C.M.P. is allowed reviewing the order and decree, dated 30-04-2011 passed in C.M.A.No.3689 of 2009 to the extent indicated above. Consequently, the C.M.A.No.3689 of 2009 stands allowed. No costs. _______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date:02-09-2011 YCR [1] AIR 2004 SC 1531(1)