15433-2005 Thafacts of the, cast: britmr arc that a Scootcr bc‘aring registxau'on NO.CG—16/58 was own€d by respondent No.3 Devchahdra Ram. On 10- 2003, the said Scooter was being driven by respondent No. Jajmsmgal Pratap Singh who is $aid to be having leamex’ license. While respomient No.4 was driving .316 scooter 10-3-2003 onc Chain Praka$h alohgwith his sister came a cyc16 near the Cherhani Nala V and tht: scooter hit the c Cle and injured Chain Prakash. Chain Prakash was admi ted in the hospital He'enany and died on 14—3~2003. Respéndmts/claimants No 1 and 2 i.e. Sadhu Sharem and Bilasi respectivelyvwho ar parents of Chain Prakash then filed claim caSe No.37/2 3 undei" Seetion 7166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and th Third Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal (FTC), S ajpur, Sarguja by award dated 14.9.2904 awarded a com ensation of Rs.2,07,840/— against the appellantflnsumnce mpany. Aggiieved by the said award, the appellantllns uance Company has filed the instant appeal‘ Mr. Prashant Jais Sr. Advocate for the appellantf Insurance Company su mitted that the ease of the- appellant/Insurance Comp y in the written statement med suceumbed to injuries 7 5 — o o w , XI-HC—22 WW, Wang,W W W ..M..&....?.1....)§200 man . . mm mmmgga mmwgtam mw 'i %a1f%n3néw Division Bench : _ _ Hon’ble Shri A‘K. Patnalk, c.J. as Hon’bielshri Fakhruddin before the Tribullal was tha‘ > scooter at the time of acci‘ I henca ulcre was brsach of L No.3 and for this breach ol InSurance Company was 11d ' Mr. J.A. Lohani, respondents No. 3 and 4 on me. case of Nalional Insural oth€rs raported in All? 2004 already held that if the vel \ driven by a person having Company would be liable tq that in View 01' the decisid Insurance Co. Ltd. {supral should not be entertained Confronted With the in National Insurance that in Lhe said decision 11 that the insurance Com policy by the owner of t respondent No.4 was driving the lent with a learner’s license and 1e ins (mane-e pulicy by respnndent insurance policy, ‘ the appellantf % liable for compsnsaiion, Learned counsel appearing for the other hand submitted that in Lee Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singli and SC 153; the Supreme Court has 1ic1e at the time of accident was learner’s license, the Insurance satisfy the decree. He submitted n of Supieme Court 'in National , this appeal has no merit and a s ‘ Co. 1 p vehicle and in case Insurance Company is able to prove efore the MotmmAccident Claims Tn'bunal that there has b en a breach of insurance policy men the Insurance C pally would be entitled to reimbursement of the amo nt paid by it in satisfaction of the decree for compensation fro the owner of the vehicle. 0%W) ‘Tl T“ nn 4 decision of the Supreme Court d. (supra), Mr. Jaiswal submits Supreme Court has made it clear can raise a defence of breach of ‘h t XI—HC—22 WW mm m‘qi%a But we $1d fro‘m the pleadings of the Insurance ’ Company before the Tribunal that the only defence taken by the Insurance Company wuh Itg'cud to brcach of Lhe policy was that respondant No.4 was d11'vi11g the scooter with a learner’S license and this was a breach of insurance policyby the respondent No.3. BE sides this breach of policy, Mr. Jaiswal fairlv submits that there was no other breach of policy pleaded in Lhe wxiuen statement of the appellant liled before the Tribunal. In paragraphs 88, 89 and 105(Viii) of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Swaran Singh’s case as reported in the AIR (supra), the Supreme Couxt has clearly held‘that if a vehicle at the time of accident was dn'ven by a peison hauing a learner’s licence, the insurance Companies ’would be liable to satisfy this dccme. For the afonesaid reasons we find no merit in this appeal anti accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sdl- Chief Justice ,u' l, r. / l: I. d]- F akhfuddm luége ,/"/ /2Pathak f’ (@W) \