Per Massodi, J.— 1. This Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against order of Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission for short) dated 27.03.2008, whereby the State Commission has allowed the respondent no. 1's complaint and awarded an amount of Rs. 1.50 lac with 8% interest per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, to the respondent No.1 on account of damages suffered by his Vehicle No. JK02H-5785 insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. 2. The appeal arises in the following factual background. 3. The respondent no. 1 insured his passenger Bus no. JK02H-5785 with appellant Insurance Company under comprehensive insurance policy for an amount of Rs. 5.00 lac, operational from 06.10.2002 to 05.10.2003. On 13.07.2003, the Bus rolled down into a Nallah at Prem Nagar on Doda-Kishtwar road after a head on collision with vehicle (matador) bearing registration no. JK06-0836. The accident resulted in death and injury to a number of passengers travelling in the bus and also extensive damage to the bus. The occurrence led to registration of case FIR no. 37 under Sections 279/337/338/304-A RFC of local Police Station. The investigation led to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Sh. Anil Kumar driver of vehicle (matador). The accident as per the investigation would not have taken place had Sh. Anil Kumar driver of Matador no. JK06-0836 not resorted to rash and negligent driving. The investigation was concluded as proved against Sh. Anil Kumar and charge sheet against him was presented in the competent court. 4. The respondents after, the accident approached the appellant Insurance Company with the request to compensate him for the damage to his insured bus. Though, M/s Arun Kumar and Co. of Jalandhar on 05.08.2003 were appointed as Surveyor by the appellant Insurance Company to assess the loss to the bus; yet insurance claim was later repudiated vide communication received by the respondent on 23.01.2004, on the ground that the insured bus at the time of accident was carrying more passengers than permitted under permit rules. 5. The respondents aggrieved with the repudiation of his claim approached the State Commission with complaint registered as Complaint no. 2639 of 2004. 6. 5. The respondents aggrieved with the repudiation of his claim approached the State Commission with complaint registered as Complaint no. 2639 of 2004. 6. The case set up by the respondents was that the accident that resulted in damage to the insured bus occurred due to its head on collision with speeding vehicle (matador) bearing registration no. JK06-0836 coming from the opposite side and was not in any way attributable to the number of passengers over and above permitted number travelling in the bus. 7. The respondents insisted that repudiation of claim was not justified and the appellant Insurance Company was under contractual obligation to reimburse the loss. The respondent claimed reimbursement of Rs. 4.50 lac as the amount incurred on repairs to the bus in question, Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental agony and Rs. 20,000/- on account of litigation costs. 8. The appellant though served through registered notice, failed to appear before the State Commission and was set exparte on 11.08.2004. However, State Commission on 24.03.2005 without setting aside the exparte proceedings, allowed the appellant Insurance Company to participate in the proceedings w.e.f. 24.03.2005. 9. The State Commission on going through the complaint and material placed on the file including copy of the charge sheet presented against Sh. Anil Kumar driver of vehicle (matador) no. JK06-0836, the proforma bill of motor mechanic and the affidavit sworn by the respondent-complainant found merit in the complaint, allowed it, awarded an amount Rsl.50 lac with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of complaint and Rs. 6000/- on account of litigation charges. 10. The State Commission's order dated 27.03.2008 is questioned on the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal. 11. We have gone through the appeal as also records received from the State Commission. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 12. It needs to be pointed out, at the outset that the appellant Insurance Company opted not to file reply/written statement to the complaint. Though an application was made for setting aside exparte proceedings, yet appellant Insurance Company felt satisfied with the order dated 24.03.2005, whereby prayer for setting aside the exparte proceedings was in effect declined and appellant Insurance Company only afforded an opportunity to prospectively participate in the proceedings- an option that was otherwise also available to it. Though an application was made for setting aside exparte proceedings, yet appellant Insurance Company felt satisfied with the order dated 24.03.2005, whereby prayer for setting aside the exparte proceedings was in effect declined and appellant Insurance Company only afforded an opportunity to prospectively participate in the proceedings- an option that was otherwise also available to it. The appellant's case that the State Commission ought to have set aside the exparte proceedings, relegating the appellant Insurance Company to the order dated 11.08.2004, i.e., the date when it was set exparte and allowed to file its reply/written statement, is bereft of any merit. The right course for the appellant Insurance Company was to question the State Commission order dated 24.03.2005 in appropriate proceeding and not to leave the order without any challenge and make an attempt to question the order when proceedings before the State Commission have come to an end with the order impugned in the present appeal. 13. The factual averments made in the petition in the said backgrounds are not controverted by the appellant Insurance Company. In absence of objections/reply to the complaint before the State Commission, appellant Insurance Company cannot set up its defence, which though, available was not taken before the State Commission, in the present appeal. The appellant Insurance Company having decided not to question the order of State Commission dated 24.03.2005 cannot assail the same in the present appeal and try to escape the consequence of its failure to question the order. 14. This apart, there is no merit in the grounds urged in the appeal. Even, if it is assumed that the appellant Insurance Company, notwithstanding its failure to file its objections/reply to the complaint before the State Commission has a right to raise all the pleas available to it, in the present appeal, still it cannot succeed in its challenge to the impugned order as the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal are devoid of any substance. 15. The main plank of the appellant's case is that as the bus owned by the respondent and insured with the appellant Insurance Company was carrying more passengers than permitted under the permit/rules, therefore, respondent was not entitled to recover any compensation from the appellant Insurance Company. 15. The main plank of the appellant's case is that as the bus owned by the respondent and insured with the appellant Insurance Company was carrying more passengers than permitted under the permit/rules, therefore, respondent was not entitled to recover any compensation from the appellant Insurance Company. The ground is urged unmindful of the fact that the accident was not attributable to overloading but was the direct result of head on collision with vehicle (matador) bearing registration no. JK06-0836 driven rashly and negligently by its driver. The police investigation supports the respondent's claim that vehicle (matador) bearing registration no. JK06-0836 coming from the opposite side that collided the respondent's vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. The acfcident that caused damage to the respondent's bus was direct result of impact of collision with speeding vehicle (matador) coming from the opposite side. The ground urged in the appeal would have possibly persuaded this Court to agree with the appellant Insurance Company, had the bus rolled down because of overloading without head on collision with speeding vehicle (matador) coming from the opposite side. In the present case, as already stated, the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle (matador) bearing registration no. JK06-0836 and not because of over loading. 16. The next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company relates to jurisdiction of the State Commission to entertain the complaint. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company argues that the right course for the respondent-complainant was to approach the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal with a claim petition and not to invoke the jurisdiction of the State Commission. It is argued that the Motor Vehicle Act is a comprehensive piece of legislation and provides all the remedies available to a victim or vehicle owner including one for recovery of compensation in the event the insured vehicle under the comprehensive insurance policy, meets with an accident. The argument may sound convincing but melts down on close scrutiny for the reason that though the respondent had the remedy available under the Act to file a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal against the vehicle (matador) bearing registration no. JK06-0836 and its Insurer on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle (matador). JK06-0836 and its Insurer on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle (matador). But in the case on hand, appellant decided not to take any action against the vehicle to which accident was attributable but decided to turn towards appellant Insurance Company with which his bus was insured. The respondent was aggrieved with the inaction of appellant Insurance Company and approached the State Commission complaining that there was deficiency of service on the part of the appellant Insurance Company and that he deserved to be compensated for the loss suffered. 17. The jurisdiction of the State Commission would have been barred, had the respondent filed claim petition against the owner or insurer of the other vehicle involved in the accident. However, where deficiency of service is alleged by the Insured against the Insurer of his vehicle and claim not laid against insurer of the vehicle that had a head on collision with the respondent's bus, the State Commission has the jurisdiction to deal with and decide the matter. 18. The legal proposition that emerges from the above discussion is that where owner of the insured vehicle damaged in vehicular accident, decides to lay a claim petition against the owner or insurer of the vehicle responsible for such accident, the right course for such vehicle owner is to approach the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal with a claim petition. However, where vehicle owner decides to fallback upon his comprehensive insurance policy and seek compensation from the Insurance Company with which his vehicle is insured, the vehicle owner may approach the Divisional or State Commission. 19. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The State Commission has dealt with the complaint and disposed of the same in accordance with the law. We do not see any reason to interfere with the State Commission's order. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed and State Commission's order dated 27.03.2008 is upheld.