Date of filing: O9.O8.2023 Date of Disposal: 30.1O.2O25 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 3oth DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 coRAM: HoN'BLE Mr. JUSTTGE T.G.SHTVASHANKARE GowDA - PRESTDENT and MTs. DIVYASHREE M - LADY MEMBER sct29tAtL625t2023 B EEN:

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd a"*e;il;;

pnas", z"o Hosur main road, Bengaluru.

Rep, by its Branch Manager Appellant/s (By Sri.Lakshminarayan.C, Advocate)

AND:

D.J.Sujatha W/o K.R.Lokesh, Age 42 years, R/o Kuvempu Nagar main road, Near St.Mary's School, Chikkamagaluru-577t01. ........ Respondent/s (By Sri. K.A.Patil, Advocate)

OR A L OR DE R (PER: HON,BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.G. SHMSHANKARE GOWDA, ,RESIDENT)

This Appeal is filed tJ/s.4t of Consumer protection Act, 2019 (in short Cp Act) by Appeltant chailenging the order dated:20.05.2023 passed in CC/22/2022 on the file of Chikkamagaluru District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short the District Commission).

2.

The Appellant was the Opposite party (in short OP) and Respondent was the Complainant before the District Commission. The Rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the District Commission.

3. The Brief facts of the case are that:

The Complainant is the owner of ra Mahind Marazzo Car (in short vehicle) bearing reg.no.KAlg C40g7 which was purchased on 09.05.2019 for Rs.72,17,525/_.

To purchase the said car she has availed the loan from financier. The said vehicle was insured with Op by paying premium of Rs.3g,439l_ for the period from

07.O5.2019 to

06.05.2020. IDV declared as Rs.9,67,002/-. Within three days of the purchase, the car met with accident on 12.05.2019. The incident was reported to OP who deputed the surveyor who assessed the at damage Rs.4,92,000/-. Since the car was purchased under loan, Insurance Company directly paid the said amount of Rs.4,92,000/- to the financier along with salvage value of Rs.1,7g,000/-. The Complainant claims that, she has purchased the car for Rs.

Rs.12,17,525/- and she is entitle for the entire amount as the brand new car become salvage. Since Op has refused to pay the remaining amount, she has filed the complaint pleading deficiency of service.

4. Before the District Commission, Op has opposed the complaint by filing version on the ground that, the loss assessed by the surveyor at Rs.4,92,000/_ and salvage value at Rs.1,78,000/- was already paid and there is nothing to be paid and there is no deficiency of service.

5. Before the District Commission, the Complainant has filed affidavit evidence as pW_1 and marked 5 documents as Ex_p1 to p5. On behalf of Op, Officer has filed affidavit evidence as RW_1 and marked

15 documents as Ex-R1 to R15.

6.

The District Commission after hearing both parties allowed the complaint directing Op to pay Rs.4,75,002/- along with interest at l2o/o p.a. from

72.06.2079 till the date of deposit; to pay interest of

9o/o p.a. on Rs.4,92,000/- from t2.06.z}tg to 27.12.20t9;

to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/_ and Rs.10,000/_

towards litigation cost. Aggrieved by the same/

Insurance Company has filed this appeal.

7 We have heard the arguments of Sri.Lakshminarayan.C, counsel for the Op and Sri.K.A.Patil counsel for the Complainant.

8. Point that arises for our consideration is:

"Whether the impugned order is perverse and illegal and calt for interference ?,, 9. It is the contention of Learned Counsel for Op that, the Complainant herself admitted that, apart receiving the amount of Rs.1,7g,000/_ on

19.11.2019 and Rs.4,92,000/- on 10.01.2020, also admitted the receipt of Rs.1,80,000/- on lZ.ll.2}tg. But the District Commission did not consider the receipt of Rs.1,80,000/- by the Complainant. The Complainant is not entitle to claim market value of the car when the IDV is itself Rs.9,67,002/-. When the surveyor has made clear assessment estimating the damage of Rs.4,92,000/- and salvage value of Rs.1,7g,000/_/ the Complainant cannot claim excess than survey report. The District Commission has commit