Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
..... vehicle met with an accident. even the complainant also informed to the insurance company, as per the communication dt.8.8.2010, that this bus was proceeding from college on 11.7.2005, transporting the students to jalagandapuram, met with an accident, and it is not the case, that this bus was used ..... liability having been created by the statute, cannot be over-ridden by the terms of the contract of insurance between the parties. s.96(2) of the act, does not include violation of the terms of the permit relating to plying in certain geographical area ? . this principle cannot be extended to the present case ..... company vs. t. elumalai, reported in air 1990 madras 71, the honble high court, considering the effect of sec.96(2) of the motor vehicles act, as well as 3rd party risk, has come to the conclusion, as against the liability of the insured to the 3rd parties, the insurer cannot take this ..... case was invented by the complainant, as if this vehicle was used to pickup the students, who stranded due to breakdown of another bus, justifying their act under ex.a12, which itself is an monumental proof for the violation of the permit, as well as policy condition. 11. the learned counsel for the ..... forum, to decide the case in respect of the own damage, on humanitarian grounds, or something like that, for which no jurisdiction was given under the act. the terms and conditions of the policy, as well as the permit being the terms of the contract agreed between the parties, that should be construed .....Tag this Judgment!