sc I cBt I 29 I RBT I A I tls6 I 2013 Date of Filing: 25.07.2O13 Date of Disposal: 20.01.2026 BEFORE THE PERMANENT CIRCUIT BENCH KARNATAKA STATE CONSUM R DISPUTES REDRESSAL COII IIIISSION.

KAL/ABURAGI DATED: 2oth DAY OF JANUARY 2026 HON,BLE MT.IUSTICE T.G. SHryASHANKARE GOWDA -

PRESIDENT CORAM:

AND HON'BLE ltlrrs. Dn /ASHREE l,l - LADY ItlEltlBER sc I cBL I 29 I RBT I Al LLS6 I 20L3 Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, No.6, 1$ Floor, Soronto Buildings, L.B. Road, Adayar, Chennai-500 020.

Represented by its Manager(Claims).

(Rep. by Sri. ltlanoj Kumar M.R, .....Appellant/s.

Advocate)

-Yls -

stc I cBL I 29 I RBt I A I tt56 I 2ll13

ORAL ORDER (PER: HO}|'BLE ilr. JUSTICE T.G. SHMSHANKARE GOWDA'

PRESIDENT)

This Appeal is filed by the opposite ^party No.1 Under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order dated: 15.06.2013 ^passed in C.C.

by the No.03/2013 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bidar (in short the District Commission).

2.

The Appellant was the opposite party No.1 and Respondent was the complainant before the District sc I cBr I 29 I RBT I A I Lt56 I 20,-3 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 is that, the complainant is the registered owner of the goods vehicle bearing No.

it MH-25-B/9365, has an insurance cover vide policy bearing No. VGC0255050000100 covering the risk between 05.01.2012 to 04.01.2013. While the vehicle was drive on the road on O3.O2.2O12 at about 05.30 PM, on NH-9 within the limits of Naladurga, Near Murtha Pati, another goods vehicle bearing No. MH- t4ltc-792 came from the opposite direction and dashed against the vehicle and caused damages to the vehicle and injury to the passengers. Hence case was in in registered Naladurga Police Station Crime No.SDN/34l12 and final report was filed in CC No.08/2012. The complainant got repaired the vehicle and approached the opposite parties for own damage claim. The claim was repudiated on the ^ground that, sc I cBL I 29 I R.BT I A I tt56 I 20t3 there is a violation of limitation as to the use. Pleading deficiency of service the complainant has approached the District Commission seeking compensation of Rs.9,40,000/- with interest at 10o/o per annum.

4.

Claim was opposed by the opposite parties by filing version admitting that, the complainant is the owner of the vehicle and it has insured with the opposite parties and the policy of insurance was in It force at the time of the accident. is their contention that, at the time of the accident the permitted capacity of the vehicle was 1 + 2 wherein the driver was , carrying 1 + 5 passengers. Where as per the limitation act who used the terms and conditions of the poliry the vehicle shall not carry more than 1 + 2 passengers including the driver at the time of accident. Since it was carrying a 03 excess passengers it is a fundamental breach of the poliry and the insurance *, I CBt I 29 I RBT I A I tt56 I 20t3 company has right to repudiate the claim. Accordingly they sought for dismissal of the complaint.

5.

Before the District Commission the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence as PW-1 and got marked 05 documents from Exhibits-P.l to P.5. On behalf of the opposite parties, the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 have filed their affidavit evidences as RW-1 & RW-2 and got marked Exhibits-R.1 to R.4.

6.

The District Commission after hearing both parties came to the opinion that, though at the time of accident the driver was carrying excess passengers the accident was not occurred on account of his negligence and the accident was occurred due to the offending vehicle and allowed the complaint directing the pafi opposite to pay Rs.5,01,63t1- with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/-.

sc I cBt I 29 I RBt I A I LL56 I 2lJ