Balanarayana Marar, J.

The insurer is the appellant. Respondents 1 to 4 are the legal representatives of one Jayaraj who died in a motor accident which happened on 8-10-1987. He was riding a scooter from Angamaly to Alwaye. When he reached Thottakkattukara the lorry KLN 5458 owned by 6th respondent and driven by 5th respondent dashed against the scooter as a result of which Jayaraj sustained serious injuries and subsequently succumbed to the injuries on the same day. His wife, daughter and parents moved Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam claiming an amount of Rs.2,61,750/- as compensation.

Respondents 5 and 6 resisted that application. Written statement was also filed by appellant disclaiming liability and contending that their liability is limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Tribunal after evidence and hearing both parties awarded an amount of Rs.1,46,250/-. Aggrieved by that award the insurer has come up in appeal.

2. Heard counsel for appellant

3. The main grievance of the appellant appears to be that the deceased was not having a valid licence at the material time and that the amount awarded is exorbitant.

4. Under S.96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any proceeding for compensation has been given can defend the action on any of the grounds mentioned therein. One of the grounds is violation of a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licenced or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification. The deceased was riding the scooter with anL* board presumably for the reason that he had obtained only a learners licence. The report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector shows that an L board was seen exhibited on the scooter. The contention is that a person who is riding a scooter with anL board is not duly licenced and as such the insurer can enforce the condition excluding driving by a person who is not duly licenced. But a person who is holding a learners licence is also duly licenced within the meaning of S.96(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. A person holding a learners licence is also entitled to drive the vehicle. The licence is also issued under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Rules. For all practical purposes a person holding a learners licence is a person duly licenced to drive a vehicle. The Madras High Court had occasion to consider this aspect in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. A. Babu and others - AIR 1990 Madras 305. It was held that the condition in the policy that the person holding learners licence would not be entitled to drive the vehicle would run counter to the provisions ofS.96(2). It was further held that it would not be possible for the Insurance Company to avoid its liability to indemnify the owner of the vehicle driven by a person holding a learners licence. It was observed that the licence is issued under R.39 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules and a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle is issued a permit commonly known as learners licence. In view of these circumstances it was held that the learners licence is also a valid permit issued by the specific authority. We are in agreement with this view and hold that the deceased though holding only a learners licence was duly licenced to drive the vehicle and that there has not been any violation of the conditions in the policy of insurance.

5. The insurer has also challenged the quantum awarded by the Tribunal. S.%(2) of the Motor vehicles Act permits the insurer to canvass the merits of the award only on one or other of the grounds mentioned therein. In case the insurer apprehends that there is a collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom it is made the insurer is not without a remedy. A request can be made to the Tribunal by the insurer for permitting them to contest the claim. If the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made or if the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim the court can direct that the insurer will have the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made. No such request is seen to have been made by the appellant before the Claims Tribunal. In order to enable the insurer to contest the claim the court has to issue a direction and that has to be done for reasons to be recorded. Evidently no permission has been obtained by the insurer from the court to contest the claim. It necessarily follows that the insurer can resist the claim only on one or other of the grounds under S.96(2) of the Act and the grounds therefor are absent.

6. The merits of the claim made under S.110-A of the Act do not find a place in that sub-section. In view of the prohibition contained in that Section it is not open to the appellant to canvass the merits of the award in appeal. There is no provision in the Act enabling the insurer to raise the merits of the award in appeal except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In other words the rights of the insurer are not in any way enlarged in appeal. The request of the appellant for interference of the award has therefore to be refused. The appeal is therefore dismissed.