Date of filing: 26.O5.2O25 Date of Disposal: 06.O1.2026 BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH KALBURGI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNATAKA DATED: O6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.G. SHMSHANKARE GOWDA _

PRESIDENT and HON,BLE T..i6. oTvYIsHREE M - LADY MEMBER RBT/FAtt37 t2025 BETWEE N:

The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd, Parvathi Nagar, Main Road, BALLARI - 583 103. ........ Appellant,/s (By Sri.S.B Zalki, Advocate)

AND:

1. K.Bhaskar Reddy S/o Subba Reddy Age 48 years R/o H.No.16, Hosapete Road, Best School Campus, Allipur, BALLARL (Respondent served-absent)

Respondent/s OR AL OR ER (PER: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA, PRESIDENT)

This appeal is filed Under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 challenging the order dated 26.03.2025 in CC/t7/2024 by the District Consumer Dispute Reddressal Forum, Ballari (in short the District Cornmission).

2. The Appellant was the Opposite party and the Respondent was the Complainant before the District Commission. For the sake of convenience rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the District Commission.

3. The brief facts of the case is that, the complainant is the owner of the car bearing the Registration No.

KA-37IN-0321 it was insured with the opposite party with the policy bearing No.2402043121P103825303 valid from 24.12.2021 to 25.07.2022. On 25.06.2022 the said car met with an accident on NH-173, Kadur- Chickmangalur Road, near Kadur it went out of control and feel into the road side canal resulting damage to the car, killing one of the inmate and injuring inmates including the driver. In this regard, the case has been registered by the Kadur Police in Crime No.13412022 on 26.06.2022.

4. The accident was intimated to the opposite party, its surveyor has visited the spot and inspected the vehicle and assessed the damage at Rs.2,58,000/-. When the claim was made, it was repudiated on the ground that, there are over loading of the vehicle in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act. pleading a deficiency of service, the complainant has approached the District Commission by filing the complaint.

5. The claim was opposed by the opposite party admitting the incident and it is contended that, the driver has carried 7 passengers though the seating capacity is 5 passengers and the vehicle was used without permit. There is a breach of terms and conditions of the policy, claim was righUy repudiated, there is no deficiency of service and sought for dismissal of the complaint.

6. Before the District Commission the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence as CW-1 and marked

6 documents as Exhibit p-1 to p-6. Officer of the opposite party has filed his affidavit evidence as RW_1 and no documents are placed. The District Commission after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay Rs.2,68,000/- with interest @ 60/o per annum, compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. Challenging the same opposite party has filed the present appeal.

7. We have heard the arguments of Sri.S.B.Zalki, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Complainant inspite of service of notice remained absent. Hence we are constrained to dispose off the appeal at admission stage itself.

8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, at the time of the accident there was

8 passengers including the driver. The said car is a Private car which is meant for personal use of the owner but it was hired for reward. Hence, there is a breach of Motor Vehicles Act and Insurance Company has right to repudiate the claim for fundamental breach. The District Commission without considering these aspects allowed the complaint and he sought for our interference.

9. The point that arises for our consideration is that:

(i) Whether the order of the District Commission is perverse, illegal and call for the interference?

1O. On careful perusal on the materials on record, it is pertinent to