HABEEBA KHANUM Vs. HULAGESHI & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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:

(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 aermitted route i.e., plying the vehicle outside the Holalkere town. Admittedly, :he 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 lability.