Delhi District Court
Delhi Gujrat Road Carrier vs The New India Assurance Co Ltd on 24 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF RAMESH KUMAR-II, DISTRICT
JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-08, CENTRAL, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, EXTENSION BLOCK:
DELHI.
CS (COMM.) 1159/2025
CNR NO.: DLCT01-016749-2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/s Delhi Gujrat Road Carrier,
A Partnership Firm having its Office at:-
Khasra No.565, 567, 569 NH-8,
Dhikopur Manesar, Gurgaon,
Through its Partner:-
Sh. Ashok Kumar Dhingra,
Email: [email protected]
..........Plaintiff.
Versus
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
5C/1, 2nd Floor, New Rohtak Road,
New Delhi-110005.
Email: [email protected].
..........Defendant.
Date of Institution : 01.11.2025
Date of final arguments : 25.03.2026
Date of decision : 24.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit as filed by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking recovery of Rs.6,34,062/- alongwith interest.
2. Brief facts of the case as made out from the plaint are that the plaintiff is a partnership firm duly registered and Sh. Ashok Kumar Dhingra is its partner and is authorized to sign, verify and CS (COMM.) 1159/2025 Page no. 1 of 24 institute the present suit on behalf of Plaintiff Firm, who is the well conversant with the facts of the case. The Defendant Company is an insurer within the definition of Section 2 (9) of the Insurance Act 1938 and is governed by the provisions of Insurance Act 1938 alongwith rules and regulations framed there under, the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act (lRDA), 1999 relating to business of Insurance.
2.1. It is further averred that the Plaintiff Firm is owning vehicle bearing registration number NL01AF6316 which was got insured from the Defendant Company. The plaintiff Firm has paid the premium demanded by the Defendant Company. The trailer comprised of Horse and trailer. The horse was insured for Rs 25,31,750/-. The Defendant company thereafter has issued the Policy bearing no.31130131210300008312 for the period 25.03.2022 till 24.03.2023 covering the risk of the said vehicle and only a three page policy without any terms and conditions was provided.
2.2. It is further averred that during the subsistence of the policy the said vehicle i.e horse was stolen on 19.01.2023 from the parking where beside the insured vehicle other vehicles used to be parked. The loss was notified by the Plaintiff to the Police. The FIR was registered was police. It is further stated that the Plaintiff firm immediately notified the loss to the Defendant company and thereafter, the Defendant company had appointed the investigator for the verification of the loss. The investigator appointed by the Defendant company was also provided with all the documents.
CS (COMM.) 1159/2025 Page no. 2 of 24 2.3. It is further averred that the Defendant company despite noticing the facts about the loss of the vehicle was affirmed by the Investigator failed to release the insurance amount. The Plaintiff Firm has approached on numerous occasions in this regard seeking the release of the insured amount but failed to evoke the necessary response from the Defendant company. The Defendant company, since it never intended to settle the claim in total, as such contrary to the IRDA regulations appointed further investigator to verify the Keys as provided by the Plaintiff Firm after the loss to defendant Company.
2.4. It is further averred that the Defendant company in order to not pay the total claim amount obtained a report from the investigator claiming that one of the key as provided by the Plaintiff Firm was not genuine. A e-mail dated 12.02.2025 was sent by the defendant company stating that in terms of FSL report one of the key was not original as such the claim is being settled on non standard basis. The defendant company deducted 25% from the sum insured. The defendant company failed to take into consideration that vehicle was lying parked and properly locked when the loss has occurred. It has no where come in that key of insured vehicle has led to its loss. It is only if the key was left inside the vehicle or key led to the loss than only the sub standard clause could be attracted as per the claim manual of the Defendant. Company. Even than it went ahead to reduce the claim amount. The contract which was extended by the Defendant company provided for the indemnification of the loss suffered by the insured. The loss was assessed and found to be payable by the Defendant company accordingly there was no CS (COMM.) 1159/2025 Page no. 3 of 24 occasion for the Defendant company to deduct the claim amount. 2.5. It is further averred that the subsequent investigator has given a false report at the instance of the Defendant Company which aspect get corroborated from this fact also that the investigator without carrying out any appropriate enquiry has submitted his report that too without giving any opportunity to the Plaintiff Firm to rebut the said findings and as such the defendant company is liable to pay the entire amount of loss.
2.6 It is further averred that the Defendant Company intentionally and deliberately delayed the claim as the Defendant Company was looking for some reason for rejection of the claim. The Plaintiff Firm has not violated any terms of the policy accordingly the Defendant Company was liable to settle the total claim. The insurance claim is a contract of indemnification and the Defendant Company, by not doing so, has committed the breach of terms of the policy.
2.7. It is further averred that there is deficiency of service on the part of defendant company and as such is bound to compensate to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.6,34,062/- being the claim amount and interest thereon @ 18% per annum from the date of loss. Hence, the present suit.
3. Defendant contested the present suit by filing detailed written statement, while taking preliminary objections that the present suit is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts with the mala fide intention. The true facts of the case are that the plaintiff got insured his vehicle from the CS (COMM.) 1159/2025 Page no. 4 of 24 defendant company under policy no. 31130131210300008312 valid from 25.03.2022 to 24.03.2023 on certain terms & conditions.
3.1. It is further stated that on receiving the information of loss/theft of vehicle, the defendant appointed M/s Shivam Investigation Legal Consultant as Surveyor and after duly investigation & verification, he submitted report and concluded that "The upper head of key of black plastic are of different shape to each other but grooves are same of both the keys" and on the basis of this finding, the defendant sent the said keys to M/s Truth Labs Forensic Services for forensic examination of keys of said vehicle. The said lab after thorough forensic examination of both keys opined at point 6.3 that"key 1 and key 2 appears to be belonging to same locking mechanism, however, key 2 being a third party manufactured key, showing certain variations seen in business area in comparison to key 1, it is possible that key 2 has been made to look alike key". It is further stated that on the basis of this findings, the defendant as per terms & conditions of the policy settled the claim on sub-standard basis with 25% deduction, strictly as per IRDAI-approved Motor OD Theft Claim Manual.
3.2. It is further stated that surveyor's and forensic report have binding evidentiary value under Section 64-UM of the Insurance Act, 1938, a licensed surveyor's report is a mandatory and material document for claim assessment.
3.3. It is further stated that non-standard settlement is justified under IRDAI-approved Motor OD Theft Manual and as per the CS (COMM.) 1159/2025 Page no. 5 of 24 General Insurance Public Sector Association (GIPSA) Motor OD Theft Claim Manual, adopted by NIACIL:-
"Where one key is non-genuine/duplicate/third-party manufactured, or where the key mismatch is established, the claim shall be settled on non-standard basis at 75% of admissible amount".
Thus, the 25% deduction is mandated, not discretionary.
3.4. It is further stated that there is a clear violation of condition no.5 (Reasonable Precautions). The policy expressly provides:
"The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage. Failure to take such precautions shall absolve the insurer from liability under the policy."
Use/submission of a non-genuine key violates this mandatory condition.
3.5. It is further stated that the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has deliberately suppressed material facts relating to the keys produced, the forensic findings, and the survey conclusions which directly affect liability under the motor policy.
3.6. It is further stated that the present suit is liable to be dismissed as the same is without any cause of action and it is a classic example of misuse of process of law. As far as merits are concerned, the contents of plaint is stated to have been denied as wrong and it is prayed that the suit of plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with costs.
CS (COMM.) 1159/2025 Page no. 6 of 24
4. Plaintiff filed replication to written statement of defendant, wherein he denied the contents of written statement and reiterated the facts stated in the plaint.
5. After completion of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide its order dated 09.01.2026:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for a sum of Rs.6,34,062/-? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest? If yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP
3. Relief.
6. After framing of issues, the matter was fixed for plaintiff's evidence. To substantiate his claim, the plaintiff has examined his Attorney Holder Mr. Bhupinder Singh Sahni as PW1 who has tendered his affidavit as Ex.PW1/A and relied upon following documents:-
1) Original attorney as Ex.PW1/1.
2) Copy of Form A as Ex.PW1/2.
3) Copy of the insurance policy as Ex.PW1/3.
4) Copy of RC as Ex.PW1/4.
5) Copy of DL as Ex.PW1/5.
6) Copy of permit as Ex.PW1/6.
7) Copy of authorization as Ex.PW1/7.
8) Copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/8.
9) Copy of untraced report as Ex.PW1/9.
7. No other witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiff and plaintiff's evidence was closed vide order dated 02.02.2026.
CS (COMM.) 1159/2025 Page no. 7 of 24 Thereafter, the opportunity was granted to the defendant to lead his evidence.
8. To achieve timely and expedient disposal of this case, a Local Commissioner was appointed in this case under Order 15A Rule 6(1) of the Commercial Courts Act and Order XXVI Rule 4A read with Order 18 Rule 4 CPC to record evidence of the defendant and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
9. The defendant has examined as many as two witnesses i.e. Ms. Archana Soni, Deputy Manager of defendant company as DW1 and Ms. Jaya Shukla, Assistant Director of Truth Labs Forensics Services as DW2. DW1 Ms. Archana Soni tendered her affidavit as Ex.DW1/A and reiterated the contents of the written statement. She relied upon the following documents:-
1. Copy of authority letter as Ex.DW1/1.
2. Copy of insurance policy as Ex.DW1/2.
3. Copy of report of Shivam Investigation Legal Consultant as Ex.DW1/3.
4. Copy of report of Truth Labs Forensics Services dated 20.08.2024 as Ex.DW1/4.
5. Copy of Theft Claim Manual as Ex.DW1/5.
6. Copy of Terms & Conditions of the policies as Ex.DW1/6.
7. Copy of certificate u/s 63(4) (c) of BSA, 2023 as Ex.DW1/7.
10. No other witness was examined on behalf of the defendant, hence defendant's evidence was closed on 14.03.2026.
11. I have heard oral arguments on behalf of both the parties. Ld. Counsel for defendant has also filed written submission on record.
CS (COMM.) 1159/2025 Page no. 8 of 24
12. I have perused the record including written arguments filed on behalf of the defendant. On perusal of record, my issue- wise findings are as follows:-
ISSUE NO.1
13. Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff and he had to prove that he is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs.6,34,062/-.
14. PW-1 in his cross-examination deposed that he has not filed any document on record to show that he is working as Insurance Head in the plaintiff firm. He admitted that he has been appointed as attorney of the plaintiff firm after institution of suit. He further deposed that whether he had put his signature on the claim form regarding the present claim of the plaintiff. He further deposed that no proposal form was required as the insurance policy was got renewed in continuation. He further admitted that he was not the driver of the vehicle insured. He further deposed that there is no question of parking the vehicle by him as same was not being driven by him. He further deposed that two original keys were provided by the company when they purchased the vehicle in question. He further admitted that his job profile is with regard to the insurance policies and claims of commercial vehicles purchased by the plaintiff firm. He further deposed that no duplicate key of the vehicle was ever got prepared. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely that no duplicate key of the vehicle was got prepared as my duties were only with regard to the insurance of the vehicles purchased by the plaintiff firm. He further deposed that they were not provided the copy of the report of any lab regarding the CS (COMM.) 1159/2025 Page no. 9 of 24 duplicate key of the vehicle in question, therefore, there was no occasion for them to raise any objection regarding the report. He further deposed that they had received 75% of the claim on sub standard basis. He further deposed that they have made a complaint to the defendant through e-mail regarding deduction of 25% of our claim. He admitted that the said fact is not mentioned in his evidence affidavit. He denied the suggestion that they have not sent any e-mail regarding complaint, therefore, neither they have filed the same on record nor mentioned in his evidence affidavit. He further deposed that he is not a forensic expert. He further deposed that he alongwith Mr. Jaswant, Traffic Manager of their firm handed over the original keys of the vehicles in question to the investigator. He further deposed that there might be some scratches on the keys on account of it being used. He further deposed that being insurance head, he is aware that each insurance policy contains its own terms and conditions and that the insurance company used to settle the claim as per its terms and conditions. He denied the suggestion that the defendant company has settled the claim of the plaintiff on sub-standard basis as per terms and conditions of the policy or that the plaintiff is not entitled for the suit amount.
15. DW-1 in her cross examination has admitted that the attorney she has placed does not contain specific power to represent the company in this particular case. She further deposed that Ex.DW1/1 i.e. power of attorney is pervasive and applied in all type of legal cases. She admitted that she has not dealt personally with this claim, but she voluntarily stated that this is a organizational structure that claim is handled at CS (COMM.) 1159/2025 Page no. 10 of 24 concerned claim hub. She further deposed that she cannot say whether the person dealt with this claim particular is still working with the defendant company. She further deposed that she cannot produce any document which shows/infers that the policy alongwith its terms and conditions were provided to the insured. She denied the suggestion that no terms and conditions were ever shared with the insured that is the reason she has not filed any proof on record to show that policy was handed over with terms and conditions. She admitted that policy contains date of issue and date of expiry. She further admitted that there is no date of issue mentioned on the terms and conditions of the policy. She further denied the suggestion that policy does not mention that terms and conditions are attached with it but she voluntarily stated that it is mentioned at the third page of policy bond at point A. She further admitted that as per investigation report, there is nothing on record that vehicle was not properly locked and also that it is nowhere mentioned in the investigation report that the key was left inside the insured vehicle. She further admitted that there is a timeline for settlement of a claim as per IRDA regulations. She further deposed that she is not aware whether the timeline of the settlement is followed in this case or not and also not aware that the investigator has submitted his report on time or not. She admitted that Ex.DW1/3 does not contain the date and signature of author of this report however the original bears the signature of the author and date as 05.12.2023 are mentioned. She denied the suggestion that investigator is not licensed by the IRDA to carry out the investigation but she voluntarily stated that they can appoint only CS (COMM.) 1159/2025 Page no. 11 of 24 IRDA licensed investigator and the said investigator is also having IRDA license to carry the investigation. She further denied the suggestion that the truth lab was appointed after considerable period to obtain the favourable report or that investigator is competent to do the investigation that's why not mentioned his qualification and has given stereotype report. She further deposed that she does not know in which condition the keys of the insured vehicle were handed over to the investigator.
15.1. During her further cross-examination, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff put a question to DW1: "the keys were not provided/taken by the investigator in sealed condition?", to which she gave reply that "she does not have any idea regarding the handing over the keys to the investigator by the insured". Ld. Counsel for plaintiff put another question to DW1: "is there any acknowledgment of insured on record to show that set of keys relied upon in this case were provided by the insured?", to which she gave reply that "the dealing claim hub officer could answer this question". She further deposed that she is not aware whether the report of the investigator was showed to the insured.
15.2. During her further cross-examination, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff put another question to DW1: "whether IRDA regulations provides to share the investigator report to the insured?", to which she has shown her ignorance. During her further cross-examination, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff put another question to DW1: "is it correct that investigator has not sealed the keys before handing over the same to the defendant?", to which she again shown her ignorance".
CS (COMM.) 1159/2025 Page no. 12 of 24 15.3. She further denied the suggestion that insured has given two original keys and there was no occasion for the insured to give tempered keys as in the investigation it has nowhere come that keys were left inside the vehicle or keys were lost.
15.4. During her further cross-examination, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff put another question to DW1 and she was asked to show from the policy any term which permits the company to settle the norm on basis if vehicle was properly locked and single key was provided to the company, to which she gave reply that "it is provided in the claim manual, not in the terms and conditions.
15.5. She further denied the suggestion that truth lab is not licensed with IRDA. She admitted that physical keys are not filed in the court but report of truth lab already on record. She further denied the suggestion that the keys have not been placed on record as it was not the same set of keys as provided by the insured to the investigator. She further denied the suggestion that the defendant not followed the regulations of IRDA in settling claims or that the deductions have been wrongly made or that there is no breach of any conditions of the insurance policy was committed by the insured.
16. DW-2 in her examination-in-chief testified that she had received two ignition keys known to be of vehicle no.NL01AF6316 for forensic examination from Ms. Anjali Sinha, Assistant Manager, Claim Hub, DRO1, New India Assurance Company Ltd. on 09.08.2024, which was registered at Truth Labs, Delhi vide file no.TLD/PC/058/2024. She further testified that they have three purposes of examination of keys CS (COMM.) 1159/2025 Page no. 13 of 24 received which is mentioned at point no.3 (page no.2) in Ex.DW1/4. She further testified that after scientific physical and instrument examination as well as microscopic examination it was opined that:-
i. Key 1 is an original OEM supplied key but key 2 appears to be a third party manufactured key;
ii. Key 1 is used but key 2 appeared to be unused, however key 2 contains several extraneous marks on its key blade which indicate towards attempt to make to show it as used;
iii. Key 1 and key 2 belong to same locking mechanism, however key 2 being a third party manufactured key showing certain variations seen in business area in comparison to key 1, it is possible that key 2 has been made to look alike key 1.
16.1. She further testified that she had given her report Ex.DW1/4 without any pressure or influence and same is true and correct to the best of her knowledge.
16.2. In her cross-examination, DW2 deposed that she has not annexed any of her credentials such as her experience certificate, her educational certificate etc. During her further cross examination, a question was put to her by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and she was asked to show any document to prove that keys provided by insurance company were the same set of keys as provided by the insurer to the surveyor, to which she gave reply that "truth labs received two keys alongwith the request CS (COMM.) 1159/2025 Page no. 14 of 24 letter of defendant on which detail of vehicle in question is mentioned". During her further cross examination, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff put another question to the witness: "is it correct that the keys were not provided to her in sealed cover/packet?", to which she gave reply that "they received the keys packed (was not properly sealed). Ld. Counsel for plaintiff put another question to the witness: "Is it correct that key were provided in which manner, has she mentioned in her report", to which she gave reply that "she has not mentioned in her report as it is part of chain of custody, they mentioned in their system". Ld. Counsel for plaintiff put another question to the witness: " Has she sought any report from investigator or company to verify the authenticity of the keys being examined by her", to which she gave reply that " as service seeker is defendant company, she has examined the keys which she has received from the company and it is not her duty to authenticate or verify the keys from the investigator or insured". Ld. Counsel for plaintiff put another question to the witness: "Has she verified the authenticity of the keys by TATA motor", to which she gave reply in negative but voluntarily stated that as it is a scientific/instrumental examination, she has furnished the report on the basis of parameters and readings obtained during the examination which is mentioned at point no.5 in her report. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff put another question to the witness: "Has she given any notice to the insured before carrying out examination", to which she gave reply in negative but voluntarily stated that as the service seeker is New India Assurance Company, hence it is not necessary. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff put another question to the witness: "Has CS (COMM.) 1159/2025 Page no. 15 of 24 she verified from the insured that keys examined by her were the same as provided by the insured", to which she gave reply in negative but voluntarily stated that as it is not her duty, she has received the keys only for the scientific examination of three parameters which she has mentioned in her testimony. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff put another question to the witness: "Has she compared with any other keys of similar vehicle to draw inference that key no.1 is the original key", to which she gave reply that "it cannot be answered in yes or no, as the keys are original or not, it is opined on the basis of scientific examination which is mentioned in her report at point no.5.1.3 and 5.3.4". She denied the suggestion that the keys examination carried by her was not in respect of the keys as provided by the insured, it was in respect of keys provided by the insurance company.
16.3. During her further cross-examination, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff put another question to the witness: "Is it correct that in your report it is nowhere mentioned that she is authorized to carry out such examination by government?", to which she gave reply in negative. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff put another question to the witness: "Is it correct that her company is not accredited by IRDAI for such examinations", to which she gave reply in affirmative but she also stated that it is not necessary for such examination. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff put another question to the witness: "Is it correct that reports submitted by Truth Labs have been rejected by Apex Court in various cases", to which she gave reply that "she is not aware". She further denied the suggestion that she has given tutored report at the instance of insurance company or that she has given evidence at the instance of CS (COMM.) 1159/2025 Page no. 16 of 24 insurance company after charging them.
17. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the defence which has been raised by the defendant company is a sham defence without any substance and no breach was committed by the plaintiff. It was further argued that the defendant company alleged that claim has been approved as per terms and conditions of the policy but no terms and conditions were ever provided by the defendant company, rather only three page policy was provided to the plaintiff. It was further argued that the investigator as appointed was not approved surveyor as per IRDA and further the investigator in her report has nowhere mentioned that the key was left inside the vehicle or was responsible for the loss. It was further contended that a tutored report of investigator has been obtained by the defendant company in order not to pay the legitimate claim of the plaintiff and moreover, the said report has no relevance as it has nowhere come on record that key was left inside the vehicle. It was further argued that the defendant company has not acted strictly in accordance with IRDAI regulations and violated the said regulations as the surveyor was required to submit his report within six months. It was further argued that in the present case no surveyor was appointed and the alleged investigator as appointed was not approved person as per IRDAI and thus the report submitted by her is tutored report and is not binding upon the parties. It was further contended that the plaintiff has not provided any two different keys to the defendant company and only original keys were provided and at the time of receipt of the keys no such plea was raised by the defendant company. It was CS (COMM.) 1159/2025 Page no. 17 of 24 further argued that there is no reference of breach of such condition in the claim note as filed as also in the investigation report filed by the defendant company and in fact the defendant company has no defence as such is not entitled to raise frivolous pleas. Hence, a prayer was made to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant alongwith interest.
18. Per contra, it was argued on behalf of the defendant that the entire dispute revolves around the legality of deduction made by the defendant company while settling the claim which deduction is fully justified and legally sustainable. It was further argued that the surveyor report Ex.DW1/3 clearly records that two keys produced by the plaintiff had different physical characteristics, though grooves appeared similar, thereby raising doubt regarding the authenticity of one of the keys. It was further argued that the forensic report Ex.DW1/4 duly proved by DW2 conclusively establishes that the second key (key 2) is a third party manufactured key which appears to be unused but contains artificial marks to show it as used and key 1 and key 2 belong to the same locking mechanism, indicating duplication. It was further argued that the testimony of DW2 has remained unimpeached on material aspects and the plaintiff has failed to produced any expert evidence to rebut the scientific findings recorded in Ex.DW1/4. It was further argued that it is a settled position of law that the report of a surveyor and expert carries significant evidentiary value and cannot be discarded without cogent reasons and the plaintiff has failed to point out any infirmity in the said reports. It was further argued that the presence of a duplicate/third party key clearly establishes CS (COMM.) 1159/2025 Page no. 18 of 24 violation of condition no.5 of the policy, which mandates that the insured must take reasonable precautions to safeguard the vehicle and use or submission of a non-genuine key amounts to breach of policy conditions, as it creates a serious doubt regarding the manner of theft and safeguarding of the vehicle. It was further argued that the claim is required to be settled on non-standard basis as per IRDAI approved guidelines and Motor OD Theft Claim Manual which provides that where a key mismatch or duplicate key is established, claim shall be settled at 75% of admissible amount. It was further argued that the plaintiff has failed to disclose material facts regarding the duplicate key and has approached this court without clean hands, thereby dis- entitling himself from any equitable relief. It was further argued that during cross-examination, the plaintiff could not dislodge the findings of the forensic report and only raised technical objections regarding chain of custody, which do not affect the scientific conclusions of the expert. It was further argued that no evidence has been led by the plaintiff to establish that both keys were original or that there was no breach of policy conditions and that the plaintiff has failed to establish any deficiency in service or illegality on the part of the defendant. Hence, a request was made to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with costs.
19. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of both the parties.
20. A perusal of the record reveals that the plaintiff has proved the occurrence of theft of his vehicle and the defendant company did not dispute about the theft of plaintiff's vehicle but assessed CS (COMM.) 1159/2025 Page no. 19 of 24 the amount by deducting 25% from the sum insured. The question therefore arises as to whether the defendant company was justified to pay by reducing the claim amount by applying the principles of sub-standard basis, on the ground that the plaintiff had breached the terms and conditions of the policy.
21. A surveyor i.e. Shivam Investigation Legal Consultant was appointed by the defendant company and necessary documents were provided for the purpose of processing the claim. The surveyor after investigation and verification gave its report Ex.DW1/3. Thereafter, the defendant company sent the keys to M/s Truth Labs Forensic Services for forensic examination of keys of vehicle in question. The said lab after thorough forensic examination of both keys opined at point 6.3 that "key 1 and key 2 appears to be belonging to same locking mechanism, however, key 2 being a third party manufactured key, showing certain variations seen in business area in comparison to key 1, it is possible that key 2 has been made to look alike key".
22. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as M/s Worldfa Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.; CS (COMM) 269/2019, I.A. 7461/2019 dated 19.03.2026 and argued that the report/opinion of Forensic Agency i.e. M/s Truth Labs cannot be read in evidence since the said agency is not IRDAI-approved and do not hold a license issued under Section 64 UM to act as a surveyor or loss assessor.
23. The relevant para(s) of aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:-
CS (COMM.) 1159/2025 Page no. 20 of 24 "17. Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938 stipulates the conditions necessary for being appointed as a Surveyor. Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938 provides that Section 64UM(4) read with the Regulations provides that any loss more than Rs. 20,000/- can be admitted for payment or settled by an insurer unless he has obtained a Report on the loss that has occurred from a person who holds a licence issued under Section 64 UM to act as a Surveyor or loss assessor".
"18. The Defendant No.2 in this case has been appointed as a Surveyor. The Surveyor/Defendant No.2 after conducting the investigation has given a Report on 25.05.2018. The Report also notes that the Defendant No.1 has appointed a Forensic agency, namely, M/s Truth Labs. There is nothing on record to indicate that the M/s Truth Labs is a Surveyor possessing the qualifications as stipulated under Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938. Regulation 13 of the IRDAI (Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors) Regulations, 2015 stipulates the duties of a Surveyor. Regulation 13(1)(p) of the said Regulations permits a Surveyor to take expert opinion wherever required. Admittedly, the Surveyor/Defendant No.2 has not taken the opinion of M/s Truth Labs".
24. Since there is nothing on record to show that the M/s Truth Labs is a Surveyor possessing the qualifications as stipulated under Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938, hence report Ex.DW1/4 of M/s Truth Labs cannot be considered in any manner. However, there is a report, Ex.DW1/3 given by the surveyor i.e. Shivam Investigation Legal Consultant to the effect that"The upper head of key of black plastic are of different shape to each other but grooves are same of both the keys" . Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has not disputed the said report of Shivam CS (COMM.) 1159/2025 Page no. 21 of 24 Investigation Legal Consultant. However, it does not mean that the case of the plaintiff shall not be considered on account of two different keys of vehicle.
25. The only question for consideration is whether the defendant company was deficient in service by reducing the claim of the plaintiff on violation of condition no.5 of the insurance policy Ex.DW1/2.
26. The relevant condition no.5 of the insurance policy is reproduced as under:-
"5. The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage. Failure to take such precautions shall absolve the insurer from liability under the policy."
27. A bare perusal of the aforesaid condition of the insurance policy reveals that the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle insured from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition.
28. Perusal of the document Ex.DW1/5 reflects that the defendant company settled the claim of the plaintiff on sub- standard basis with 25% deduction as per terms and conditions of the policy since one key of the vehicle in question was found to be a third-party manufacturer. There is nothing on record to show that one of the original key was lost prior to the incident and the plaintiff got prepared the duplicate key from local market. As far as non-submission of second original key of the vehicle is concerned, the same becomes inconsequential as the vehicle was forcibly taken during commission of offence of theft. As such, CS (COMM.) 1159/2025 Page no. 22 of 24 the second original key could not have been misused by the plaintiff in any manner.
29. Further, the defendant company has failed to draw the attention of the court to any clause contained in the terms and conditions of the insurance policy Ex.DW1/3 which shows that it is mandatory on the part of the insured to submit both the original keys of the vehicle to get the genuine claim in case of theft of the said vehicle or in case duplicate key is submitted the claim shall be settled on sub-standard basis with 25% deduction as per terms and conditions of the policy. The defendant is not able to establish the negligence of plaintiff in the loss of the vehicle as it is not the case of the defendant company that the plaintiff had left the key ignited when the theft took place. The reason given by the defendant to reduce the claim of the plaintiff appears to be arbitrary, whimsical and against the contractual law. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of defendant company in reducing the claim of the plaintiff. As per document Ex.DW1/5, the defendant company deducted Rs.6,32,938/- from the claim of the plaintiff.
29. In view of forgoing discussion, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs.6,32,938/-. Issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.2
30. Onus to prove this issue was also upon the plaintiff and he had to prove that he is entitled to interest.
CS (COMM.) 1159/2025 Page no. 23 of 24
31. The plaintiff has claimed interest @ 18% amount, however, no specific agreement or contractual clause regarding the rate of interest has been proved on record. In the absence of any agreed rate of interest, the court is empowered to grant reasonable interest considering the facts of the case. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that interest @ 9% per annum would meet the ends of justice. The plaintiff is entitled to interest from the date of filing of the suit till date of realization of the decreetal amount. This issue is also decided in favour of the plaintiff.
RELIEF
32. In view of my findings on aforementioned issues, a decree for a sum of Rs.6,32,938/- alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization thereof is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Costs of suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
33. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
34. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed
(Typed to the dictation directly, corrected and by RAMESH
pronounced in open court on 24.04.2026). RAMESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.04.24
15:05:49 +0530
(RAMESH KUMAR-II)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-08
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts,
Extension Block, Delhi.
CS (COMM.) 1159/2025 Page no. 24 of 24