PRAHLAD SHARMA Vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will decide the objections of the opposite party/Insurance Company in regard to the maintainability of the complaint in the present form before this Commission. The complaint has been filed against the opposite party No.1/Insurance Company and opposite party No.2/Exclusive Motors Private Limited alleging deficiency in service on their part.

(2.) In nut shell the case of the complainant is that after purchase of a car-Lamborghini Gallardo Coupe imported from Italy, the complainant got it insured from the opposite party No.1/Insurance Company on 22.10.2009 on which date the vehicle in question was also registered with the Transport Authority of the Government of NCT of Delhi. On 05.11.2009, the said car met with an accident, while driven by a certain Mr. Divakar Pilania, representative of O.P. No. 2/dealer who had supplied the car to the complainant and the car was damaged requiring extensive repairs cost of which was estimated at Rs. 92,42,025.30P. The complainant lodged the claim with the insurance company for indemnification of the loss but the insurance company repudiated the claim on the grounds that the statements and disclosers made by the complainant in making the claim were not in accordance with the actual circumstances of the accident and it was found that the referred accident had taken place on 22.10.2009 i.e. one day prior to the date of inception of the policy on 23.10.2009 and not on 05.11.2009. Not satisfied with the said repudiation, the complainant filed the complaint seeking the following relief (s) / compensation from the opposite parties:

(3.) On being noticed on the complaint, the opposite party/insurance company has filed a reply raising preliminary objections about the maintainability of the present complaint against the said opposite party, inter-alia on the grounds that the present complaint has been filed without any cause of action against the answering opposite party and is abuse of process of law; the complaint has been filed with illegal motive and ulterior endeavor to secure illegal pecuniary gains by suppressing the material facts and circumstances. It is further pleaded that the complainant had obtained insurance policy for his Lamborgini Gallardo Coupe, a luxury car that is a private car and the opposite party had issued a Cover Note bearing Number 57919149 and thereafter provided insurance policy number 3001/57919149/00/000 to the complainant along with the terms and conditions governing the contract of insurance which would show that the vehicle in question was insured from 23.10.2009 and was valid upto 22.10.2010. On issue of the policy, cover note was cancelled. It is also stated that the vehicle in question was registered as Government Vehicle without any insurance policy on 22.10.2010. It is denied that the vehicle in question had met with an accident on 05.11.2009 when it was being driven by Mr. Divakar Pilania in Great Noida, Uttar Pradesh and on receipt of the claim it was found that the vehicle in question had met with an accident on 22.10.2009 itself and not on 05.11.2009 as alleged by the complainant. In any case, it is pleaded that the repudiation of claim by the insurance company is justified. Reference is also been made to IMT 13 of Indian Motor Tariff providing for coverage and indemnification when the vehicle is engaged in such activities on payment of additional premium. Liability to pay the compensation much less the compensation as claimed by the complainant is specifically denied.