CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the owner of the vehicle challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Chickmaglur, in M. V. C. No. 72 of 1992. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed a petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation in respect of the injuries suffered by him in accident occurred on 12. 1. 1992. The tribunal on assessment of the evidence has held that the injuries suffered by the respondent No. 1 are on account of rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the appellant. In respect of the injuries, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 38,400 with interest. Insofar as the liability is concerned the Tribunal has absolved the insurance company of its liability and has directed the appellant to satisfy the award. Therefore, the appellant has filed this appeal contending that the tribunal was not right in absolving the liability of the insurance company. ( 3 ) THE Claims Tribunal has held that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation on the ground that on the date of the accident the vehicle was not registered as required under section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). Section 39 of the act reads as follows:"39. Necessity for registration. No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner: provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the central Government. "no doubt under the above said provision, no person shall drive any motor vehicle in any public place unless the vehicle is registered. The facts in this case are ( 4 ) THE vehicle in question was temporarily registered under section 43 of the act and it was valid till 30. 11. 91. Thereafter, the vehicle has been permanently registered as required under section 39 of the Act, with effect from 24. 1. 92. The date of accident is 12. 1. The facts in this case are ( 4 ) THE vehicle in question was temporarily registered under section 43 of the act and it was valid till 30. 11. 91. Thereafter, the vehicle has been permanently registered as required under section 39 of the Act, with effect from 24. 1. 92. The date of accident is 12. 1. 1992, on which date the vehicle in question did not have any registration certificate. ( 5 ) THE contention of learned counsel for the insurance company is that since there is a prohibition to use the vehicle in any public place without a valid registration as required under section 39 of the act, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. ( 6 ) IN reply to this submission learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the non-registration of the vehicle is not one of the defences contained under section 149 (2) of the Act and, therefore, the insurance company is not entitled to raise the defence in order to avoid its liability. ( 6 ) IN reply to this submission learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the non-registration of the vehicle is not one of the defences contained under section 149 (2) of the Act and, therefore, the insurance company is not entitled to raise the defence in order to avoid its liability. ( 7 ) IN order to appreciate this submission it is useful to refer to section 149 (2) and (7) of the Act, which reads as follows"149 (2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given, the insurer had notice through the court, or as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely (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) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or (b) for organised racing and speed testing, or (c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or (d) without side-car being attached where the vehicle is a motor cycle; or (ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification; or (iii) a condition excluding liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion; or (b) that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by the nondisclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular. (7) No insurer to whom the notice referred to in sub-section (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. " ( 8 ) FROM the above said section, it is clear that the defences open to the insurance company are only those mentioned under section 149 (2) of the Act. The nonregistration of the vehicle is not one of the defences enumerated under section 149 (2) of the Act. Therefore, the insurance company is not entitled to take defence of the non-registration of the vehicle on the date of the accident. Further, the grounds of defences have been specified in section 149 (2) of the Act and no other ground of defence can be added to the said section. Under sub-section (7) of section 149 of the act, the insurance company is not entitled to avoid its liability to any person entitled to the benefit of any judgment and award referred to in sub-section (1) otherwise than in the manner provided for in subsection (2) of section 149 of the Act. Therefore, I am of the view that the Tribunal was not right in absolving the liability of the insurance company on the ground that there was no registration of the vehicle as on the date of the accident. When such being the case, the insurance company shall not be allowed to raise the defence of non-registration as it falls outside the scope of section 149 (2) of the Act in this appeal. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation as determined by the tribunal is kept undisturbed. The respondent No. 2 insurance company is directed to pay the amount to the claimant as awarded by the Tribunal within eight weeks from today. The amount deposited by the appellant in this court is ordered to be refunded to the appellant. Appeal partly allowed. --- *** --- .