Date of faling: O4.O2.2O22 Date of Disposal: 12.01.2026 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 2th DAY oF JANU RY 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA - PRESIDENT and HON,BLE MTs. DIWASHREE M - LADY MEMBER sct2 9l Al24st 2022 BETWEEN:

The Manager ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Interface Building, No. 1 1, 40L/ 402, 4th Floor, New Link Road, Malavad West, Mumbai-400064.

Branch Office atl ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., 2nd floor, SVR Complex, No.89, Hosur Main Road, Madivala, Koramangala, Bengaluru-68.

Rep. by its Legal Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office: The Estate, 9th floor, Dickenson Road, Bengaluru-42 M.G.Road, Appellant/s (By Sri.Shivanne Gowda.B,C, Advocate)

AND:

M.V,Anil Kumar S/o Late M.S.Venkatarama Rao, Aged about 44 years, R/at No.147, 19th main, Muneshwara Block, Bengaluru.

........ Respondent/s (By Sri.V. N.Simha, Advocate)

ORAL ORDER (PER: HoN'BLE Mr. JUSTTCE T.c. sHTvAsHANKARE GowDA, PRESTDENT)

This Appeal is filed U/s.15 of Consumer protection Act, 1986 (in short Cp Act) by the Appellant challenging the order dated:10.t2.202t passed in CC/t057/2020 on the file of 1.t Addl., District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru Urban (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 being the owner of the Hero Motor Cycle bearing reg.no.KA-O5 KT-3726 obtained insurance policy from OP which is vatid from 29.05.2019 to 28.05.2024. The Complainant on t4.t2.2}tg at about 6.10pm while riding the motor cycle on Bull Temple road, Opp.

BMS college, fell down from the vehicle due to skid and sustained grievous injuries. He was under hospitalization for 5 days, wherein it was found ^..comminuted intercondyle fracture of left tibia in his left leg,,; he was operated and a nail was inserted. He was advised by the doctor to take six months rest and to follow the treatment. He has spent Rs.1,27,390/- towards the said treatment. He made the claim of pA cover of Rs.2 lakhs before OP, but the same was rejected. Hence pleading deficiency in service he has filed the complaint.

4, Before the District Commission, Op has opposed the complaint by filing version on the ground that liability on the part of Op to pay pA cover is subject to terms and conditions of the policy and Schedule III _ Personal Accident Cover For Owner - Driver. Claim of the Complainant will not fall in any of the clause (i) to (iv) of the III Schedule of the policy. The fracture sustained by the Complainant rs not a permanent disablement. The claim is rightly repudiated.

Hence sought for dismissal of the complaint.

5.

Before the District Commission, Complainant has filed his affidavit evidence as CW_1 and marked

19 documents as Ex-p1 to p19. On behalf of Op, one witness is examined as RW_1 and Ex-R1 & R2 are marked.

6.

The District Commission after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint in part and directed Op to pay a sum of Rs.87,000/- along with interest at !2o/o p.a. from the date of claim till the date of payment;

to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages; to pay Rs.5,000/-

towards litigation cost. Aggrieved by the same, the Op has filed this appeal.

7.

We have heard the arguments of Learned Counsel for Appellant. Learned Counsel for Respondent is absent. ^perused the materials on record.

8.

Now the point that arise for our consideration is;

Whether the order of the District Commission is perverse or illegal, does call for interference ?

9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for OP that, Schedule III of the policy is part of terms and conditions of the policy. As per Schedule III of the policy, under "Personal Accident Cover for Owner- Driver," a person is entitle to claim 1