“ 17. It is, therefore, clear that an insurer is not entitled to take a defence, which is not specified in Section 96(2) of the Act. These provisions have to be construed strictly. As stated earlier, it is not the breach of any conditions of the policy of insurance, that would provide the insurer a defence under Section 96 (2) of the Act. The policy of insurance may permit the insurer to avoid its liability under various circumstances. However, as against the liability of the insurer to third parties, the terms the policy of insurance are subject to the provisions of Section 96(2) of the Act. If there is a breach of the contract on the part of the insured the insure could proceed against the insured, but as far as the third party risks are concerned, the liability having been created by the statute, cannot be over-ridden by the terms of the contract of insurance between the parties. Section 96(2) of the Act, does not include violation of the terms of the permit relating to plying in certain geographical areas. Hence, the plea that the autorickshaw was found plying in the city of Madras contrary to its permit, even if established factually, cannot be a ground since the same does not fall within the ambit of Section 96(2) of the Act. It is not, therefore, open to the appellant to plead that the auto-rickshaw was found plying in the City of Madras, in contravention of a condition in its permit restricting the geographical area wherein the vehicle could be plied. ”
