Date of filing: 28.04.2017 Date of Disposal: 24.09.2025 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 24^th DAY OF SEPETEMBER 2025 CORAM: HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA – PRESIDENT and Mrs. DIVYASHREE M – LADY MEMBER SC/29/CC/203/2017 BETWEEN:

Sri. Venkateshappa K.S S/o Subbanna, Aged about 42 years, Proprietor, Shree Venkateshwara Stone Crusher, Sy.No.58/4, Anmittanahalli, Tekal Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District – 563 130. .…….. COMPLAINANT/S (By Sri.Suresh.M, Advocate)

AND:

The Authorized Signatory, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd., Golden Heights, 4^th Floor, No.1/2, 59^th ‘C’ Cross, 4^th ‘M’ Block, (Near Sujatha Theatre/SJRC College), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru – 560010. ……..OPPOSITE PARTY/S (By Sri.Manoj Kumar.M.R, Advocate)

O R A L O R D E R

(PER: HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA, PRESIDENT)

This Complaint is filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short CP Act).

2. The brief facts of the case is that, the Complainant is the R.C. owner of the Bharat-Benz Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-08-8483 (in short Tipper). The said Tipper was having a Insurance Cover with the Opposite Party for sum assured of Rs.23,62,439/- under a policy No. 0G-16-1701- 1803-00007907, valid from 31.03.2016 to 30.03.2017. The Complainant had employed one Sri.Shivagondappa Nandur as the driver of the said vehicle, who was holding Driving License bearing No. D.L.No.MH12 19950477555.

2(a). On 01.11.2016 at 10.00 p.m while the Tipper was carrying the jelly to Lakkenahalli on Kamasamudram- KGF Main Road. The lorry after reaching the destination while unloading came in contact with live electric wire, as a result of which the lorry was electrocuted, brunt and the driver was died on the spot. The matter was reported to the Kamasamudram Police, who registered case in FIR No.83/2016 on 02.11.2016. The lorry was later on removed to the Bharat-Benz Garage, estimation was taken and the complainant has claimed for own damage with OP.

2(b). The opposite party have also sent their surveyor, who inspected the Tipper and filed his preliminary report. OP while assessing the claim came to know that, the Driving License of the driver of Tipper was expired on the date of accident. On the said ground they have repudiated the claim. Aggrieved by the same the Complainant has filed the Complaint.

3. The opposite party has opposed the complaint by filing version but admitted the ownership of Tipper, policy of the Insurance, sum assured and they are ready to pay the claim if it in accordance with the Rules. Their defense is that on the date of accident the driver did not hold valid and effective Driving License therefore, they can repudiate the claim and accordingly, they have repudiated the same and there is no deficiency on their part and sought for dismissal of the Complaint.

4. On behalf of the Complainant, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and marked 17 documents as Exhibit-C1 to C17. On behalf of the Opposite party, the officer of the Opposite party has filed his affidavit evidence and also affidavit of the Surveyor Mr.D.Ragotham as RW-1 and 2 and relayed on 26 documents as Exhibit R-1 to R-26.

5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides. On behalf of the complainant written arguments is also filed.

6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that as per Section 15 of the Motor Vehicle Act even after the expiry grace period of 30 days is allowed for its renewal. The accident occurred during the grace period and therefore Commission has to consider that the deceased was having a valid driving license at the time of the accident and the repudiation of the claim by the opposite party is illegal. He has relayed Exhibit C-11 to demonstrate the damage was Rs.29,21,630/- estimated by the Bharat-Benz the authorized servicer provider.

7. Per contra learned counsel for the opposite party has contented that, after the accident the vehicl