sc / cB2 I 29 I A / La2O / 20 L 8 Appeals liled on: 09. 1 1.2018 Appeals disposed on: 18.03.2026 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT BENCH.2, BELAGAVI DATED THIS THE lSthDAY OF MARCH,2026 CORAM: HON'BLE SRI.RAVI SIIANXAR - JITDICIAL MEMBER and HON'BLE SMT. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI ^. LII"DY MEMBER sc I cB2 I 29 I A I L820 I 20L8

1) Sri.Ravikant, S/o Shivaputrappa Kanagi, Age: 45 Years, Occ: Business, R/o: Ward No. 10, Vivekanand Nagar, Bagalkot.

lRep. ^{bg Srl.t.llllflskln, Adwcatel} .....Appellanr/s.

-vls-

1) The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Sector No.25, Plot No.D/38, Navanagar, Bagalkot- 587 103.

2) The Regional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, No.144, 2"d Floor, Shubharam Complex, M.G.Road, Bangalore - 560 001.

(R-1 & 2 are Rep. bg Sri.Janardhan Reddg, Adaocate)

.....Respondeut/s ORDER (PER: HON'BLE SRI.RAVISHANKAR, WDICIAL MEMBERI The Appellant/Complainant has preferred this apperd against the dismissal order dated: 06.10.2018 passed b_y u2r the District Cons DisRutes Redressal Commission, Bagalkot in Consumer Complaint No.84/2017 against which tJ e Appellant before this Commission and prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission in the interest ofjustice and equity.

2. The learned counsel for appellant submits that infact the cleaner, one Parmanarrd was driving the vehicle, who sustained injuries and taken a treatment. In this regard, the medical certificate is produced before the District Commission. F\rrther, the complaint was given b1, the owner of the vehicle after lapse of 4 days, knowing that the said Parmanand had no valid driving licence had inserted the one Sangappa Borgi as a driver and given a complaint in order to claim the own damage. They have played a fraud in order to claim own damage. Observine the same, the District Commission dismissed the complaint. The order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with law. Even the swom aJfidavit of the owner, does not discloses with respect to the presence of the said Parmanand at the time of accident itself. It was concocted, subsequenfly in order to claim own damage. The order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with law. There is no any dehciency in service in repudiating the claim. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal.

3. Perused the certified copy of the order passed by the District Commission, Memorandum of Appeal and swom aflidavit grven by the owner of the vehicle also.

4. The owner of the vehicle one ^{Mr. Ravikant S/o}

Shivaputrappa Kanagi had stated ^{that accident took place} on 15.01.2017 at about 0.30 hours, ^{near Tikota. But, in} the entire aflidavit, he had not ^{spoken about the presence of} Mr. Paramanand, who got ^{severe injuries at the time of} accident. No whisper in that regard, ^{he just mentions, one} Sangappa Ningappa Borgi driving ^{the vehicle at the time of} accident. That ctearly creates an assumption ^{that the story} created for the ^purpose of claiming own ^{damage. On the} otlrer hand, the District Commission after ^{appreciating the} evidences and documents produced ^{by both the parties} has dismissed ^the complaint holding ^{the complainant is} not entitled to get own damage as the driver at the time of driving the vehicle had no valid driving licence. ^{We confirm} the order passed by the District Commission. ^{No valid} grounds are put forth before this Commission to set ^aside the order passed by the District Commission. ^{The very} purpose of giving a complaint at belated time of 4 days is to bring the driver, who had vaiid driving licence to ^show that he was driving the vehicle as on the date of accident. The said thought was clearly noted during the course of trial before the District Commission. Hence, the order is in accordance with law. No inference is required. As such the appeal is hereby dismissed. Accordingly we ^proceed

to pass the following:-

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Th9 impugned order dated 06.10.2018 passed by ^the (