S. Sujatha, J.

This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga, [the 'Tribunal', for short] in MVC No. 471/2011, whereby the claim petition as against respondent No. 2 is dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts are :

That the claimant filed a petition before the Tribunal contending that he sustained grievous injuries in the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 30.8.2010 owing to the actionable negligence of the driver of the auto rickshaw bearing registration No. KA-16/A-4354 (offending vehicle), while he was walking on the road as a pedestrian. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 entered appearance through their respective Counsel and resisted the claim. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000 with interest @ 6% p.a. From the date of petition till realization, as global compensation absolving the insurer from the liability to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle.

3. The principal contention of the insurer was that on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle had permit to ply within Holalkere town only, as per Ex. R2. Thus, even if the said vehicle is validly insured as per Ex.R1, the usurer is not liable to indemnify the owner since the driver of the offending vehicle had violated the terms and conditions of the policy by deviating the permitted route i.e., plying the vehicle outside the Holalkere town. Admittedly, the accident in question had occurred at Vidya Nagar, Chitradurga. It was the rase of respondent No. 1/owner of the offending vehicle that the driver of the said offending vehicle had taken the vehicle for repairs to the garage at Chitradurga. Such being so, Clause (p) to Sub-section (3) of Section 66 would apply. This ground not being substantiated by convincing evidence, the Tribunal rejected the same and exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability.

4. Reiterating the grounds urged before the Tribunal, the parties to the appeal submitted their arguments. Given the circumstances, the point that irises for consideration in this appeal is, whether deviation of permitted route is per the permit issued by the appropriate authority would be a statutory defence available to the Insurance Company under Section 149(2)(a)(i)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, ('Act' for short)?

5. It is apt to examine the relevant provisions i.e., Section 149(2)(a)(i)(c) of he Act which reads thus :

(a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely :

(i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle -

"(a) xxx

(b) xxxx

(c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or

(d) xxxx"

Section 66(1) of the Act reads as follows :

"Section 66: Necessity for permits :

(I) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorizing him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used :

Section 149(7) of the Act indicates the manner in which Sub-section (2) of Section 149 has to be interpreted.

"Section 149(7): No insurer to whom the notice referred to in Subsection (2) or Sub-section (3) has been given shall be entitled to avoid his liability to any person entitled to the benefit of any such judgment or award as is referred to in Sub-section (1) or in such judgment as is referred to in Sub-section (3) otherwise than in the manner provided for in Sub-section (2) or in the corresponding law of the reciprocating country, as the case may be."

6. Thus, it is clear that the insurer can avoid its liability only on the statutory defences enumerated in Sub-section (2) of the Se