1, RBr lAl L27 /2OL4 Date of faLng2 27.OL.2OL4 Date of Disposal: 2O.O1.2026 BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH KALBURGI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNATAKA DATED: 2oth DAY OF JANUARY 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.G. SHMSHANKARE GOWDA PRESIDENT and HON,BLE MTs. DIVYASHREE M - LADY MEMBER RBT I AIL27 /2OL4 BETWEEN:

Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, Hubli.

Through its Bangalore Regional Office, 1st Floor, Ferns Icon, Survey No,28, Doddanekkundi Village, K R Puram Hobli, 037.

Bangalore - 560 ........ APPELLANT/S (By Sri.V V Chandriki, Advocate)

AND:

Sri. Shivalingappa, major, S/o Tippanna Jaknalli, R/o LTRT-23-9, ACC Colony, Wadi (Jn), Chittapur Taluk, Gulbarga ........RESPONDENT/S (By Sri.Srikanth C, Advocate)

RjBTIAILzT I2OL4 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON,BLE MT. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA, PRESIDENT)

This appeal is filed Under Section ^{15 of the Consumer} Protection Act, 1986 challenging ^{the order dated 28.11.2013 in} Consumer complaint No.90/2013 ^{passed by the Gulbarga District} Consumer Disputes ^{Redressal Forum (In short the District} Commission).

2. The Appellants were Opposite Parties ^{and the 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 for the ^{sake of conveyance.}

3. The briefs facts of ^{the case that, complainant is the owner} of the Innova car bearing ^{Registration No:KA-33-5005 which was} the. insured ^with the Opposite ^{party with policy bearing} No:FPB/20501507/E6/O4|D1E61C ^{for a period from 2510412012 to} 24/O412OL3. On the intervening ^{night of L9/OB(2OL2 and} 2OIOB/2O12 the said vehicle was ^{met with an accident near Keri} Bhosga Cross, Gulbarga Aland main road within ^{the limits of} (cB-1)

KSCDRC

RBT/A/

I20L4 Gulbarga Rural police station. The inmate,s in the car was sustained injuries and the vehicre was damaged. It was intimated to the Opposite party. The surveyor of the Opposite party inspected the vehicle, the vehicle was moved to the garage and the complainant spent Rs.4,50,000/- towards repair and made a claim with the opposite party, The claim was repudiated on the ground that vehicle was private vehicle and it was used for hire or reward and also against the seating capacity of 7, B passengers are carried' Alleging the deficiency of service, comprainant has fired the complaint before the District Commission.

4. The opposite party as opposed the complaint by filing the version, admitting that the comprainant is the owner of the vehicle, there was a valid insurance in existence of the date of accident. It is there defence that Innova car is a private car which can only be used by the owner with seating capacity of 7, wherein at the time of accident the vehicle was hired for reward, it was carrying g passenger. Hence, there is a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the insurance company having the right to repudiate the claim, accordingly it was repudiated and there is no deficiency of service and sought for dismissal of complaint.

RBT A t27 20t4 . 5. Before the District Commission the complainant has filed his Affidavit evidence as PW-1 and marked the 9 documents as P-1 to P-9. On behalf of the opposite party the office of the Opposite party has filed the Affidavit evidence as RW-1 and marked Exhibits R-l to R-4.

6. The District Commission after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite party to pay Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @ 9olo p.a and also pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. Aggrieved by the same the opposite party has filed the present Appeal.

7, We have heard the arguments for learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. On behalf of the appellant written arguments is filed same is treated as the arguments.

8. Now the point that arises for our consideration is;

Whether the order of the District Commission in allowing the complaint is perverse, illegal and calls for our interference?

9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the