Date of Filing: 15.04.2015 Date of Disposal: 24.02.2026 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KALBURGI CIRCUIT BENCH DATED, THIS THE 24th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 PRESENT HON,BLE MT JUSTICE T G SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA :

PRESIDENT HON,BLE MTS DIVYASHREE M : LADY MEMBER sclcBL/29/ Al4L9l20ts The Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Pravathi Nagar Main Road SLV Towers, Bellary Now represented by its Regional Manager The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office TP HUB, Lamington Road Hubli - 580 020 Appellant (By Mr Mohammed Nazaruddin A Chenguta, Advocate)

-Versus-

Mr Mohammad S/o Shashavali Aged 35 years R/o Gandhinagar Bellary-583 101 Advocate)

(By Mr A Mohammad Tair, Respondent :ORAL ORDER:

PER: Mr JUSTICE T G SHMSHANKARE GOWDA :

PRESIDENT This Appeal is filed U/S 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) challenging the Order dated 24.02.201.5 passed in Consumer Complaint No.244/20L3 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bellary (in short, the District Commission).

2.

The Appellant was the OP and the 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 respective status before the District Commission.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that, the Complainant is the owner of TATA goods Vehicle bearing registration No.KA-34/4208, which was insured with the OP under a public package policy valid for a period from 21.06.2012to 20.06.2013. The Insured Declared Value of the vehicle was Rs.2,70,000/-and Complainant had paid premium of Rs.18,858/-.

3(a).

On 27.12.2012 at about 3.00 pm, the said vehicle met with an accident near Torangal and was totally damaged. The incident was informed to the Op, who appointed a Surveyor. The Surveyor visited the spot, inspected the vehicle and assessed the damage.

3(b).

The Complainant got the vehicle repaired by spending of Rs.2,00,000/- and submitted a claim to the OP. However, the OP repudiated the claim on the ground that as on the date of accident, the vehicle did not possess a valid fitness certificate and that only a fee of Rs.500/- was paid on 30.11.2012 for renewal of fitness certificate. Alleging deficiency in service, the Complainant has filed the Complaint before the District Commission.

4.

Before the District Commission, the OP opposed the complaint by filing the Version admitting the ownership of the vehicle, issuance of the policy, the policy was in force on the date of the accident, the Complainant is entitle to claim own damage on account of road traffic accident. It is the specific case of the OP that vehicle had not been inspected by the Motor Vehicle Authorities and no IMV report was produced by the Complainant.

4(a). It was further contended that the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- was only an estimate and not produced original bills, As on t3.12.2Ot2, the vehicle was not holding a valid fitness certificate amounts to fundamental breach of terms & conditions of the policy. It was renewed only on 15.01.2013 and therefore, the repudiation of the claim is justified and there is no deficiency in service. It was further contended that, the Surveyor has assessed the net loss at Rs.74,300/-. The claim shall be assessed on the basis of surveyor's report and not on the estimation furnished by the Complainant. Hence, OP sought for dismissal of the Complaint.

5.

Before the District Commission, on behalf of the Complainant, Complainant has filed his affidavit evidence as PW1, examined Motor Vehicle Inspector as CW-1 and marked 5 documents as Ex-C1 to C5. On behalf of the OP, an Officer of OP filed his affidavit evidence as RW1 and Ex-

R1 to R7 marked.

6.

The District Commission after hearing the arguments of both the parties held that as on the date of alleged accident, there was a valid fitness ceftificate. Relying on the Surveyor's report, the District Commission allowed the Complaint in part and directed the OP to pay