These two appeals are filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on the ground that the auto rickshaw has plied beyond the permitted route and met with an accident. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on

11.02.2009, the deceased M.S.Basappa and Smt. Susheela were proceeding in a auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-12-8941 from Shanivarasanthe to Igoor Village and on the way, the driver of the auto rickshaw drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the auto rickshaw was capsized. Due to the impact, the deceased M.S.Basappa and Smt. Susheela died. Therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased persons have preferred claim petitions seeking compensation.

3. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the records.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submitted that the auto rickshaw was having permit within the territory of 10 kms. radius of Shanivarasanthe Pete but the accident was caused at the place of Igur which is beyond the territory permitted route. Therefore, it is submitted that there is violation of condition of insurance policy. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner and pay compensation. Therefore, prays to allow the appeals. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants justified the judgments and awards passed by the Tribunal. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeals.

6. In the present case, Ex.R3-permit which has been given to the auto rickshaw to ply within 10 kms. radius of the Shanivarasanthe Pete town and shall carry 3+1 passengers. But the accident was caused at Igur which is beyond the territory of Shanivarasanthe Pete town. Also there were six passengers were traveling in the auto rickshaw. Under these circumstances, whether the auto rickshaw having a route permit of 10 kms. radius of Shanivarasanthe Pete, met with an accident beyond the permitted route, amounting to a fundamental infraction so as to exonerate the insurance company, is a question to be considered.

7. The question involved in the present case is no more res integra in view of the judgment of this Court in MFA No.6604/2016 C/w. MFA No.507/2016 dated 29.09.2022. The above case is also having the similar set of facts that the bus had plied beyond the permitted route and met with an accident. Under those circumstances, it was observed in the judgment at paragraph 17 as follows:

"17. Therefore, in this background applying the principle of law laid down as above stated, if there is any deviation in plying the vehicle other than the permit route, it does not amount to infraction. It is just only a deviation of route where the accident has occurred. Therefore, it cannot be said that the bus was not at all having any permit. Mere deviation of the route is not an absolute breach of the policy so as to absolve the insurance company from its liability. Furthermore, the defence raised in this appeal by the learned counsel for insurance company is not applicable as per Section-149(a)(2)(i)(c) of the M.V. Act, if the vehicle is used for other purpose which the permit is granted, such option is available to the insurance company. Here the purpose for which the vehicle was used is a matter for consideration. Therefore, the said violation as contended by the insurance company is not available under Section-149(2) of the M.V.Act as contended as it amounts to breach of condition of permit policy. The Bus was used for the purpose of carrying passengers and not for any other purpose. The bus was used for the same purpose for which the permit was granted but on different route. Therefore, the defence raised by the insurance company is not available. As per the legal provisions above discussed, if the bus was used for any other purpose then the contention of the insurance company may be correct. But this is not the case herein. The purpose for which the permit was given was for ca