IMPORTANT POINT
The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safe guard the vehicle insured from the loss of damage and to maintain it in efficient condition.

ORDER

Prem Narain, Presiding Member—The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30.10.2017 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (‘the State Commission’) in Complaint no.257 of 2016.

2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant no.1/ respondent through complainant no.2 purchased a truck bearing registration no.PB 06 Q 8333. Insurance for the said vehicle was taken for the period 04.09.2014 to 03.09.2015 for a sum of Rs.22,00,000/-. On 30.09.2014, the said vehicle met with an accident. Claim was intimated on 05.11.2014. Surveyor has reported that the loss appeared to be of an earlier date than the reported date. On 26.02.2016, the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground of misrepresentation of fact violating condition 8 of the terms of the insurance policy.

3. The State Commission vide its order dated 30.10.2017 had allowed the complaint and observed as under:

“This complaint is allowed with cost of Rs.20,000/- and the opposite party is directed to pay the IDV of the vehicle to the complainants, being total loss, as per the terms of the insurance cover along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., 11.08.2016 till realisation within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, it is made clear that if the vehicle is hypothecated from some Bank or Financial institution, then the first right will be of that Bank/ Institution over the above said amount and the remaining amount shall be payable to the complainants”.

4. Hence, the present appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the surveyor in his report has observed that the vehicle which was inspected by the surveyor after the accident seems to be a different one than the vehicle which was pre-inspected before the issuance of the insurance policy. In this regard the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the date of accident is not clear as no FIR in respect of the accident has been lodged though the accident was a major accident and the vehicle was allegedly totally damaged. As there was no FIR in the matter, even the accident may be of a prior date than the date of commencement of the policy. In that case, the claim cannot be covered under the policy.

6. It was further argued by the learned counsel that no intimation of the accident was timely given to the police, nor the insurance company was informed timely. As per condition no.1 of the policy, the insurance company was required to be immediately informed about the accident, however, intimation to the insurance company was given only after 36 days. There has been an inordinate delay in intimating the accident to the insurance company which is a violation of condition no.1 of the policy and the claim is not payable due to this delay. In support of his argument the learned counsel referred to the judgment of this Commission in HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Shri Bhagchand Saini son of Suvalal – 2014 SCC online NCDRC 874 decided on 04.12.2014, wherein FIR was lodged within two days of the accident, however, intimation to the insurance company was given after five months and in this case this Commission has dismissed the complaint. In the present case, the position is still worse as even no FIR has been lodged in the matter, therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

7. The complainant has taken the stand that issue of delay has not been taken as a ground in the repudiation letter and therefore, the same cannot be taken as ground for dismissing the complaint. Learned counsel for the respondent/ insurance company states that even if this ground has not been taken in the repudiation letter but the same is taken in the written statement. Therefore, it is required to be considered by a Consumer Forum. In respect of this argument, t