JUDGMENT : P.G.M. Patil, J. The insurance company being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 23.9.2010, passed in MVC No.70/2009, by the MACT-IX, Ballari, has filed this appeal. 2. The status of the parties is referred to as per their ranking before the tribunal. The respondent No.3 insurance company before the tribunal is the appellant herein. The claimant/petitioner before the tribunal is respondent No.1 herein and the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, respondents No.1 and 2 before the tribunal are the respondents No.2 and 3, respectively, in this appeal. 3. It is the case of the claimant before the tribunal that on 26.9.2008, while the claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle on proper side of the road, in front of the house of Mallikarjun on Talur Mata Sugur Road, near Uttanur cross, at about 2.30 p.m., respondent No.1 being the driver of the tractor and trailer bearing registration No.AP-21/V-1337-1901, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, in a high speed and dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant, resulting in the accident. The claimant/petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to VIMS hospital, Ballari. Thereafter he was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and orthopedics and he was treated for a period of three months as inpatient and he incurred heavy medical expenses. Since respondent No.2 being the owner of the tractor and trailer, and the said vehicle was duly insured with the respondent No.3 insurance company, both are liable to pay the compensation. 4. In pursuance of the notice, the respondents No.1 to 3 appeared before the tribunal and respondents No.1 and 2 have not filed the written statement. Respondent No.3 filed the written statement. It has denied that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer and that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries. He has also denied the age, occupation and income of the petitioner. The driver of the tractor and trailer was not having valid driving licence on the date of accident. The tractor and trailer was not having any permit to ply in the State of Karnataka. Therefore, there is violation of policy conditions and as such the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues. The tractor and trailer was not having any permit to ply in the State of Karnataka. Therefore, there is violation of policy conditions and as such the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues. In support of his claim petition, the claimant has got examined himself as PW.1 and a witness as PW.2 and got marked 116 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.116. Per contra, the respondent No.3 insurance company got examined its witness as RW.1 and got marked 5 documents as Exs.R.1 to R.5. The tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned judgment, awarding compensation of Rs. 2,68,600/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Respondent No.3 being the insurance company was directed to deposit the compensation amount. 6. The insurer being aggrieved by the impugned judgment has filed this appeal on the ground that the tractor and trailer bearing registration No.AP-21/V-1337-1901 was registered as a commercial vehicle with the Regional Transport Authority, Kurnool, in the State of Andhra Pradesh and was covered by a permit to ply only in the State of Andhra Pradesh and at the material time of accident it had entered the State of Karnataka, transgressing the territorial limits and had met with an accident in the State of Karnataka, thereby respondent owner of the vehicle has flouted the conditions incorporated in the permit and the insurance policy. Therefore the tribunal has acted arbitrarily and perversely in saddling the liability on the appellant insurance company. The tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the claimant from agriculture at Rs. 4,000/- per month. Further the tribunal erred in considering the permanent disability at 20% of the whole body. 7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 8. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the appellant insurer has made out grounds to exonerate him from the liability saddled against him and whether has made out grounds for reducing the compensation. 9. 7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 8. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the appellant insurer has made out grounds to exonerate him from the liability saddled against him and whether has made out grounds for reducing the compensation. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submitted that the of fending vehicle is registered as commercial vehicle with Regional Transport Authority, Kurnool, in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the permit issued in respect of the said vehicle is only to ply the vehicle in the State of Andhra Pradesh and that the accident in question occurred in the State of Karnataka, thereby the permit conditions are violated. Consequently policy conditions are also violated and as such the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the permanent disability of the claimant ought to have been considered at 10% to the whole body. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of The Divisional Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Dodda Mukappa S/o. late Sanjeevappa and others, in MFA No.23409/2010 connected with MFA No.23410/2010, decided on 13.6.2016, submitted that the provisions of section 88(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are applicable in the present case and as such there is no violation of permit conditions. The learned counsel further submitted that the accident in question occurred within 16 kilometers in the State of Karnataka and that the said vehicle started from the place within the limits of State of Andhra Pradesh and it was passing through the State of Karnataka to the destination, which also lies in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 11. This Court, in the above stated case had an occasion to consider the application of provisions of section 88 of M.V.Act, 1988. The proviso to section 88(1) reads as follows: "Section 88.-(1) ................. . 11. This Court, in the above stated case had an occasion to consider the application of provisions of section 88 of M.V.Act, 1988. The proviso to section 88(1) reads as follows: "Section 88.-(1) ................. . Provided further that where both the star ting point and the terminal point of a route are situate within the same State, but par t of such route lies in any other State and the length of such par t does not exceed sixteen kilometers, the permit shall be valid in the other State in respect of that par t of the route which is in that other State notwithstanding that such permit has not been countersigned by the State Transport authority or the Regional Transport Authority of that other State." 12. The reading of the proviso would demonstrate that vehicles are permitted to travel to an extent of 16 kilometers on either side of the border and permit obtained in one State holds good and use of the vehicle within the restricted distance of 16 kilometers cannot be objected on the ground that it has not been countersigned by the competent authority of other State. Therefore the proviso to section 88 provides deemed permit in such a situation. In order to invoke this provision, it has to be proved that both the starting point and the terminal point of a route are situated within the same State, but part of such route lies in the other State and the length of such part does not exceed 16 kilometers and on satisfying to these conditions, the permit shall be treated as valid in the other State in respect of that part of the route. 13. In the present case it is admitted that the of fending vehicle tractor and trailer bearing registration No.AP-21/V-1337-1901 is owned by one Rahamathulla, resident of Holagunda village, situated within the limits of state of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated in the police records that the tractor and trailer was proceeding to Holagunda village situated within the limits of Andhra Pradesh State, the place of residence of the owner. Therefore it is made out that the starting point of the said vehicle and the terminal point of route are situated within the State of Andhra Pradesh but the accident occurred within the state of Karnataka which lies within 16 kilometers distance. 14. Therefore it is made out that the starting point of the said vehicle and the terminal point of route are situated within the State of Andhra Pradesh but the accident occurred within the state of Karnataka which lies within 16 kilometers distance. 14. It is also seen from the records that the owner of the tractor and trailer was not prosecuted for violating the permit conditions under section 192(A) of the M.V.Act. The tribunal on proper assessment of the material on record has recorded a finding that there is no breach of permit conditions, which needs no interference by this Court. Therefore the contention of the appellant insurer that there is breach of permit conditions and consequently policy conditions, cannot be accepted. The appellant insurer has not made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment on this ground. 15. The Tribunal on assessment of the evidence of the claimant and also PW.2- Dr.Dinehs Gudi, who has issued the disability certificate, recorded the finding that the claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 20% to the whole body and accordingly, awarded compensation towards loss of future earning capacity by accepting the permanent disability to the extent of 20% to the whole body. This finding of the Tribunal also needs no interference by this Court. Therefore the point for consideration is answered in the negative. Thus, the appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The amount deposited by the appellant insurance company shall be transmitted to the concerned tribunal, for disbursement.