A comprehensive policy of insurance can be taken during the subsistence of a third-party policy, and the acceptance of the proposal retrospectively does not render the policy void so long as the policy is in force on the date of the accident.

Mr. Justice P.C. Misra, President—This application has been filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. The insured is the complainant and the Insurance Company is the respondent.

2. The brief facts of the case as revealed from the complaint petition are that the complainant purchased a TATA Truck in the year 1983 bearing Regd. No. OSC-789 made a comprehensive insurance policy vide Policy No. 315400/MV/2267/90 for a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs with the respondent-company. The said policy was valid for the period from 27.11.89 to 26.11.90. On 28.11.89 at 9 p.m. the said truck met with an accident and after accident the respondent company did not settle the claim of the claimant. It is the case of the complainant that after accident the said truck was severely damaged and it was towed from the place of the accident to the garage namely M/s. Viswakarma Automobile Works, Bhubaneswar. The complainant lodged the claim before the respondent No. 2 in the prescribed format claiming a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs. Due to non-availability of funds with the complainant he had made arrangement for repair on contract basis with the understanding mat the insurance claim amount would be paid directly by the Insurance Company to the garage owner. Accordingly, the complainant wrote on 263.90 to the Insurance Company. The owner of Viswakarma Automobiles Works also wrote to the Insurance Company requesting the company to issue the cheque in its favour. On 27.6.90 the Insurance Company wrote to Vishwakarma Automobiles Works indicating mat they will pay the amount as per the approval of the Surveyor towards repair of the vehicle of the present claimant.

On 31.1.91 the said vehicle was handed over to Sri Susanta Kumar Mishra the complainant by the Vishwakarma Automobile Works and this information was given to the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 31.1.91. On 1.2.91 the complainant wrote to the respondent No. 2 to inspect the truck. Subsequently the claimant submitted all the required documents and requested the respondent No. 2 to settle his claim. No steps were taken by the respondent company to settle the claim of the complainant amounting to Rs. 1,37,000/-. As a result, the garage proprietor forcibly seized the said vehicle in the month of May, 1991 for nonpayment of dues and refused to hand over the vehicle till the full payment was made. The complainant arranged for private finance and cleared up the dues with the garage owner in December, 1991. On 14.10.91 the claimant received a letter from Shyamlal Bhowmick, Calcutta stating that he has been appointed by the Calcutta Office to investigate the matter and needed answers to certain querries in the process of the said investigation. Till 3.7.92 there were many correspondences between Shyamlal Bhowmick and the complainant regarding querries relating to the said dispute. It is further indicated in the complaint petition that as the respondent company did not settle the claim, the complainant suffered financial loss, & loss of business, good will & finally filed this Consumer Dispute Case On 2.8.8.92.

3. The respondents have averred that the claim of the claimant is not genuine since he has suppressed material facts as the vehicle was insured under the Third Party Policy bearing No. 315400/2/1192/MV/90 for the period from 31.8.89 to 30.8.90. The truck met with accident on 27.10.89, but the complainant did not immediately inform about the said accident. The complainant subsequently took comprehensive insurance of the vehicle by suppressing vital and materials facts. The complainant had also not disclosed the fact that the vehicle had been registered under the Third Party Policy risk coverage till 30.8.90 covering the date of accident. The comprehensive Policy No. 315400/ MV/2267/90 though purports to cover the period from 27.11.89 to 26.11.90 yet the same was issued on 4.12.89. It is alleged by the respondent that in all probability the complainant after regularisation of papers and documents on 4.12