Date of Filing 20.03.2015 :

Date of Disposal :04. 12.2025 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COM MISSION, KALABURGI CIRCUIT BENCH DATED, THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 PRESENT HON,BLE MT JUSTICE T G SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA:

PRESIDENT HON,BLE MTs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER sc / cBL / 29 / RBT / Al 27 4 / 2OLs Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited., D.No. 145(5), 17th Ward, Kolachalam Compound, Vattam Complex, Bellary-583101, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, Mr Niranjan B, Appeltant (By Mr V S Zalaki, Advocate)

-Versus-

1. Mr Huchappa, S/o. Late Malleshappa, Aged about 29 Years, Door No,64, Ward No.2, Shridhara Gadda, Talur Road, Bellary-583101 (By Mr Lokesh M, Advocate for Rl) 2. Kotak Life Insurance Company Ltd., Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Company Limited., Bth Floor, Godrej Coliseum, Behind Everard Nagar, Mumbai-400022 Sion (East), Respondents : ORAL ORDER:

PER: Mr JUSTICE T G SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA:

PRESIDENT This Appeal is filed U/S 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 by Opposite Party No.1 (in short OP) challenging the Order dated L?.02.2015 passed tn Consumer Complaint No.64l2013 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ballari(in short, the District Commission).

2, Appellant was the OP1 and Respondent was the Complainant before the District Commission. For the sake of convenience, 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 and his father Mr Malleshappa has purchased Tractor bearing Registration No.KA-34-TA-0751 from OP1. OP2 issued Mahindra Loan Suraksha Life Insurance Pollcy vide Certificate No.CI-FII-20058465 valid from 14.10.2010 to 13.10.2011. Both the parties have entered into Agreement the Complainant borrowing a loan of Rs.3 lakhs and finance charges for Rs.1,25,500/- on 14.10.2010. Therefore, the Agreement value became Rs.4,12,500/-. OP1 also collected Rs.13,000/- as administration charges towards the said policy, apart from premium.

The Complainant was required to repay the loan in EMi of Rs.68,750/- and issued 6 cheques for the said amount. The Complainant's father also gave his lands as security towards the said loan and agreement is trilateral and renewal policy. In the event of death of customer-loanee, the legal heirs of loanee need not pay the loan amount to the financier and same will be paid by the Insurance Company/OP2

4. Unfortunately, on 2L.01.2013, father of the Complainant died at Sridharagadda Village. Thereafter, the Complainant approached OPs on 05.02.2013, intimating the death of his father and requested for closure of loan agreement and to return the original RC, insurance policy, no due certificate. OPs repudiated the claim on the ground that policy was not renewed. Alleging deficiency in service, Complainant approached the District Commission claiming sum assured of Rs.3 lakhs.

5.

Before the District Commission, OPsl and 2 opposed the complaint by filing their respective versions. They have admitted the purchase of tractor by availing financial assistance from OP1 and insurance coverage by OP2. It is their case that, policy had expired on 13.10,2011 and thereafter it was not renewed and the loan amount due was Rs.1,39,670/- as on the date of death of the father of the Complainant. Since the policy was not renewed, as per clause-8 of the policy, there is no coverage of insurance and the loan was outstanding. Hence, there IS no deficiency of service and sought for dismissal of the Complaint.

6.

Before the District Commission, Complainant has filed her affidavlt evidence as PW1 and got marked 9 documents as Ex-P-1 to P-9. On behalf of OP, one witness has filed his affidavit evidence as RW1 and Ex-R-1 to R-10 came to be marked.

7 The District Commission after hearing the arguments of both parties, allowed the Complaint in part and directed the OP1 to pay a sum of Rs.1,60,330/-with compensation of Rs.3,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. Complai