Appeal filed on: 19.12.2023 Appeal disposed on:. 17 .02.2026 THE I(ARNATAXA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDR"FSSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF FEBRUARY,2026 scl2e lAl2478l2023 PRESENT CORAM: HON'BLE SRI RAVI SHANXAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, LADY MEMBER M/s United India Insurance Company Lmitied, Having its Divisional Oflice At No. 10/4, Mitra Towers, Kasturba Road, Bengaluru-560001.

...Appellznt/s Now being Represented by the Regional Office, Situated at 5tl'Floor, Krishibhavan Building, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru-560002 Through its Authorized Officer.

(Bg Sr1. Venkatesh Shastry, Adtncate)

-Versus-

M/s Surface Logistics, Having its Registered Office at No. 18/A, Gayathri Nilaya, 4ft Cross, ...Respondent/s Represented by its Senior Executive. (BU Srl. Ananthram. C, Adrncate)

ORDER BY HON'BLE SRI RAVI SHAITKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER The Appellant/Opposite Party filed this appeal against the order passed by the 1"t Additional District Consumer Disputes Redreynl Commission, Shanthinagar Bangalore in ae I 29 I al 2478 I 2023 complaint No.275/2O22 dated 08.09.2023 al:.d prays to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Commission in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The District Commission after appreciating the documents produced by both of parties had allowed the claim made by the complainant towards the own damage of the vehicle. The accident took place at Tamilnadu. After accident the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.21,19,618.33/-, but after receiving the survey report The appellant had repudiated the claim for the reason that the national permit conditions are violated by the complainant, hence declined to pay the own damage claim against which the complainant approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service. The District Commission had allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to pay an amount of Rs.21,19,618.33/- with interest @ 60/o from the date of complaint and also dtected to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and towards litigation expenses of Rs.5,0OO/- against which the appellant preferred this Commission.

3.

Heard from both parties.

/

sc I 29 I Al 247A I 2023

4. Perused the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal and filed written arguments and on parallel the respondent also files written arguments with a document. Wherein, no charge sheet was filed against this respondent by the Tamilnadu Government or Police Station for violation of any permit. The permit was provided, no conditions was violated, inspite of that the appellant company have repudiated the claim without any valid reasons. Mere minor violation of ttre permit not be a ground for rejection for entire claim of the complainant for own damage. The policy is valid as on the date of accident and permit also produced. The District Commission after appreciating the said facts had rightly allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to pay the above said amount. No interference required and at the same time no valid grounds urged before this Commission to set aside the order passed the District Commission. As such, the appeal is hereby dismissed and accordingly we proceed to pass the "u"*'"*hi \)

scl29l a|247812023 ORDER The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

The impugned order dated 08.09.2023 passed by the l"t Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shanthinagar, Baagalore in CC.No.275 2022 I is confrrmed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the Respondent/Complainant.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.

ot?-L \d (suNITA.c.BAcEwADr)

MEMBER MEMBER

HI