MOHAMED ANWAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the insurer of the offending tractor-cumtrailer belonging to respondent No. 2 herein is directed against the judgment and award of the motor accidents claims tribunal ('the tribunal' in short), belgaum, made in m. v. c. No. 307 of 1986 holding the insurer also liable together with respondent nos. 2 and 3 (owner and driver) to pay the compensation awarded to respondent No. 1 injured claimant under the impugned award. ( 2 ) ON the claim petition of respondent no, 1, (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant') the enquiry was held by the tribunal. On the basis of evidence brought on record by both the sides the tribunal rightly recorded its affirmative finding in claimant's favour on the relevant issue holding that she did suffer bodily injuries in the accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of the tractor-cumtrailer bearing registration No. Mez 5345 and 5346 by its driver, respondent No. 3. ( 3 ) THE defence of the appellant insurer before the tribunal was that it was not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant because at the time of accident the said vehicle was used at a place outside the territorial limits permitted under its exh. D3 permit issued by the concerned r. t. o. ; and because the vehicle was hired to one galli for transportation of agricultural produce. The contention of insurer has been negatived by the tribunal on a detailed consideration thereof in the impugned judgment. In rejecting this contention the tribunal has assigned the following reason:"it is clear that mere breach of the clause does not absolve the insurer of his liability and the insurer has to establish that insured himself was guilty of committing breach of contract. Third party risk is always beneficial legislation and it is compulsory insurance and for breach of condition of permit and the statutory rules if the insurance company is absolved then the very purpose of compulsory insuring the vehicle for third party risk will be defeated and the social object for which that enactment is made will be defeated. . . " ( 4 ) THERE is no dispute that the injured claimant qua the accident was a third party. . . " ( 4 ) THERE is no dispute that the injured claimant qua the accident was a third party. There is also no dispute that the defence taken by the insurer before the tribunal against its liability to indemnify the insured in respect of third party risk did not fall within the purview of the defences made available to the insurer under subsection (2) of Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the tribunal, appellant insurer was not entitled to raise such a defence against its liability towards third party risk, which does not lie within the purview of Section 96 (2) of the act. In that view of the undisputed legal position, the finding of the tribunal holding the appellant insurer also liable to pay the compensation to the claimant under the impugned award is legally correct. Therefore, no fault could be found with its impugned award. ( 5 ) HENCE, the appeal is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .