FAO NO. 72 OF 1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO. 72 OF 1999 Date of decision: 1st July, 2010 The New India Assurance Company Limited ..........Appellant Versus Jaswinder Kaur and others .........Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company seeking for exclusion of liability on the ground that the driver had a learner's license and hence the Insurance Company will not be liable. This issue has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company vs. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297. In that judgment the court has considered also an earlier decision rendered in New India Ansurance Company vs. Mandar Madhav Tambe (1996) 2 SCC 328. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as held in Swaran Singh's case (supra) as under:- FAO NO. 72 OF 1999 2 Contention 3(e): Learner's Licence held -----Ss. 8, 3(2), 4(3), 6, 7(2), 9, 10(2), 14 and 15 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 the main enactment. It is also a 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. The provisions contained in the said Act provide also for the grant of a driving licence which is otherwise a learner's licence. Learners' 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 licenses granted in terms of the statute. A person holding learner's license 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 cannot, therefore, be said that when a vehicle is 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 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. If a vehcle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner's licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree. 2. The Insurance company is therefore, liable and exclusion sought to the appeal cannot therefore, be taken as tenable. The appeal is dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 1st July, 2010 Shivani Kaushik