IMPORTANT POINT
Where insured fails to inform insurance company forthwith about incident, it is violation of mandatory conditions of insurance policy.

Petitioner/Complainant has filed present revision petition under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Act’) against impugned order dated 31.1.2014 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (for short, ‘State Commission’) vide which appeal filed by Respondents/Opposite Parties against order dated 8.12.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (for short, ‘District Forum’) was allowed. Consequently, complaint filed by petitioner before the District Forum was dismissed.

2. Brief facts are, that Petitioner filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) against respondent on the grounds, that she is owner of HTV No.PB-11-AE-9602 which was insured with the respondents vide policy dated 08.12.2007. This vehicle met with an accident and was got repaired under supervision of respondents. Petitioner spent about Rs.2.00 lacs on its repair. Inspite of various request, ultimately vide their letter dated 01.07.2008, respondents repudiated the claim. Thereafter, complaint was filed.

3. In reply, respondents admitted that vehicle was insured with it. However, petitioner gave intimation on 27.03.2008, that is, after 5 days regarding the loss. Shri Rajeev Sharma, Surveyor was deputed who submitted his report dated 09.06.2008. In the claim form submitted by the petitioner, it was stated that vehicle was driven by Kulwant Singh at the time of accident. As per driving licence, driver was entitled to drive LMV and HMV only. The vehicle as per load challan, was transporting 20,000 liters ENA. However, driver was not competent to drive the vehicle loaded with hazardous goods which is violation of the terms and conditions. Therefore, claim was repudiated, vide letter dated 01.07.2008.

4. District Forum allowed the complaint, vide order dated 8.12.2009 and passed following directions;

“The O.Ps are directed to pay the complainant repair charges of the vehicle in question to the tune of Rs.1,28,162/- with interest thereon @ 9% P.A. w.e.f. 27/06/2008 giving three months time to the O.Ps for processing the claim w.e.f. 27.08.2008, the date on which the claim was submitted to them till the date of actual realization. Since interest on the claim amount is being allowed, no further compensation for deficiency in service or harassment is allowed. The O.Ps should also pay costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.”

5. Being aggrieved, respondents filed appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed.

6. Hence, present revision.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and gone through the record.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel that impugned order is erroneous in law, as non- endorsement on driving licence is of no consequence to the driving skill of the driver. Endorsement with regard to hazardous goods on the driving licence, neither increase the efficiency of driver nor its absence reduce his efficiency for driving. No further expertise or driving skill is required for driving (carrying dangerous or hazardous goods). The State Commission overlooked the fact, that while vehicle had been damaged, but there had been no accident, leading to loss of life or injury to any person.

9. In support, learned counsel relied upon a decision of Madhya Pradesh High court, Baghelkhand Filling Station and anr. Vs. Brijbhan Prasad and others, II(2007) ACC 457 (DB).

10. Petitioner in the complaint has averred;

“that the vehicle in question met with an accident and the vehicle in question was got repaired by the complainant under the supervision of surveyor of the opposite party as the complainant has informed the opposite party regarding the loss to the vehicle in question in accident after the accident and a Surveyor has been appointed by the opposite party under whose supervision the vehicle in question was got repaired by the complainant spending amount in question.”

11. After scanning through the entire complaint, i