Delhi District Court
Klj Plasticizers Limited vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 30 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Sh. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL
District Judge (Commercial Court) -02,
Central, Tis Hazari
DLCT010064362023
CS (COMM.) No. 788/2023
CNR No.DLCT010064362023
K.L.J Plasticizers Limited
through its Director
At: 8A, Shivaji Marg,
Moti Nagar,
New Delhi, Delhi 110 015 ......Plaintiff
Versus
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd
Through its Divisional Manager
A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi 110 002 ......Defendant
Date of filing of suit : 11.05.2023
Date of Argument : 23.07.2025
Date of Judgment : 30.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. There are thirteen connected cases pending before this Court wherein principally the parties are the same. In all the aforesaid cases, the main dispute Digitally between the parties is whether loss of quantity(s) in signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.07.30
17:00:29
+0530
KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 1 of 76 )
Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) question is/are covered under the Insurance policy(s) or not ? Further, in most of the cases, the evidence led by the parties, arguments and contentions are absolutely identical and similar. Rather in a few cases, even the cross examination of the witnesses appears to be photocopies. Further, reference to the provisions of law and judicial authorities is also the same, therefore, this judgment in a way, would be reproduction of the same judgment in all the thirteen cases after making few cosmetic changes regarding the insurance cover notes, insurance policies, details of consignment and surveyor reports etc.
2. Here it is pertinent to mention that in the present case the evidence of both the parties has been recorded by the Ld. Court Commissioner appointed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court. From the records of these cases, it is evident that even those documents have been given exhibit mark which are either dim or absolutely dark and not legible. It was the duty of the Ld. Court Commissioner to ask the party concerned to provide the legible copies. During the Final arguments, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff was asked to provide the legible copies of such documents, so that the same may be considered. This court is not happy with the way Ld. Court Commissioner has recorded KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 2 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) the evidence. Be that as it may, this Court tried its best to consider the documents as relied upon by the parties for adjudicating the dispute effectively between them.
3. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit for recovery of Rs 15,45,512/- (Rs Fifteen Lakh Forty Five Thousand Five Hundred and Twelve only) filed by the plaintiff company against the defendant company alleging wrongful rejection of the insurance claims of the plaintiff company by the defendant company.
Factual Matrix
4. The brief facts of the case, as made out from the plaint are that the plaintiff company is stated to be a company registered under the companies Act, 1956, and is engaged in manufacturing of plasticizers and allied items and also in import/export of various types of chemicals/petrochemicals; as a matter of business prudence, the plaintiff company would insure all its consignments to be imported against the various transit risk under 'All Risk Insurance Policies'.
5. It is the case of the plaintiff company that in order to protect its Chemicals/petrochemicals to be imported by the plaintiff company against any kind of loss or damages during transit, plaintiff company had KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 3 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) obtained insurance covers from the defendant company, who is stated to be a leading insurance company of the country in public sector and also a Body incorporated and registered under the Companies Act,1956; defendant company issued cover notes in respect of the consignments by providing covers for all kind of transit risks from Anywhere in the world to Anywhere in India via any Indian Port on shore tank to shore tank basis.
6. The details of the said cover notes and insurance policies issued by the defendant company are as under:
Cover Note No. Policy No.
325614 272200/21/2015/393
Coll/2319008162 272200/21/2015/1096
324471 272200/21/2014/592
7. It is stated that the aforesaid cover notes and insurance policies were issued by the defendant company in respect of the following consignments:
Invoice Dated Quantity Ship Name Delivery No. Port 8895804869 23.07.2014 999.472 ORIENTA 8895807 MT L 869 MARGUE RITE 8895806768 31.01.2015 499.919 ORIENTA Mumbai MT L MARGUE RITE 92026603 13.09.2013 763.000 FAIRCHE Kandla MT M BRONCO KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 4 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023)
8. It is the further case of the plaintiff company that the plaintiff company received a short quantity of the consignments and has suffered losses. According to the plaintiff company, the unloading of the consignments were done under the supervision of the Insurance Surveyors; defendant company after obtaining the report of first surveyor, had deputed second surveyor for the same losses and had obtained another report; the surveyors in their reports confirmed the losses due to short quantities received by the plaintiff company. The details of the Surveyors reports are as under:
Survey Dated 2nd Short Claim Claim Short or Surve Quan Intimation Bill quantity Report yor tity Letter to Ref. report Ins. Co.
No. Ref.
No.
SGS 17.09.2014 NA 8.799 27.10.2014 27.10.201 8.799 MT
IN/MU MT 4
M/OG
C/2014
/01131
SGS 11.03.2015 - 493.3 14.01.2015 13.03.201 493.344
IN/MU 44 5 MT
M/OG MT
C/2015
/00329
JB 17.10.2013 SK 5.414 09.12.2013 09.12.20 5.414
Boda- Chak- MT 13 MT
KDL/0 SKC/H
O/SUR/
2652/1
8522/1
3/AA
3-14
KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 5 of 76 )
Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023)
9. The plaintiff company is said to have lodged its claims for shortage of the said material to the Ship's agents also vide their letters and then to the defendant company in respect of the aforesaid losses.
10. It is stated that the defendant company did not settle the claims of the plaintiff company despite the reminders having been sent by the plaintiff company and instead rejected the claims of the plaintiff company on the ground that under the insurance policies, the defendant company has no liability as the same being beyond the scope of insurance policies taken by the plaintiff company.
11. According to the plaintiff company, the plaintiff company had taken the insurance policies " All Risk Policy" covering all kind of losses without any exception, therefore, the shortage of material would come within the scope of insurance policy and the defendant company is under statutory obligation to indemnify the plaintiff company to the extent of losses which have been suffered by the plaintiff company.
12. Another set of facts, as emanate from the plaint, is that after rejection of the claims by the defendant company, plaintiff company had approached District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Central, Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as "District Forum"); the KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 6 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) claims of the plaintiff company were returned by the District Forum as it was observed that it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction; plaintiff company then approached the National and State Commission seeking redressal and consequently the complaints were returned to the District Forum by the State Commission; the entire process of trial was repeated at the District Forum; District Forum observed that the claims/complaints filed by the plaintiff company are not maintainable as it was the business to business transactions and are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act 1986; District Forum is said to have been apprised of by the plaintiff company that pursuant to the judgment of National Commission, the claims were maintainable but despite that the complaints of the plaintiff company were returned.
13. It is also stated that the claims/complaints of the plaintiff company were never dealt with by the District Forum on merits, therefore, the plaintiff company is entitled for the benefit under section 14 of the Limitation Act for which a separate application has been filed and the case of the plaintiff company falls within the prescribed period of limitation and is maintainable.
KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 7 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023)
14. It is stated that since the claims of the plaintiff company were rejected wrongly by the defendant company, therefore the defendant company is liable to pay the interest @ 12% p.a from the date of repudiation i.e. 18.11.2014 till 30.04.2023 to the extent of Rs 7,78,222/-. According to the plaintiff company a total amount of Rs 15,45,512/- (Rs 7,67,290/- as Principal + Rs 7,78,222/--as Interest) is due and outstanding against the defendant company.
15. In compliance of the provision of section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as amended to date, the plaintiff company filed a pre-litigation mediation application before the Delhi Legal Service Authority, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, (in short "DLSA") against the defendant company; the DLSA has released a non-starter report dated 11.04.2023.
16. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant company. The defendant company made the appearance and has filed the written statement.
17. Since, there was a delay of a few days in filing the written statement, therefore, an application under order VIII rule 1 CPC was moved on behalf of the defendant company seeking condonation of delay, which was allowed vide order dated 03.08.2023 by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court and the written statement KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 8 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) filed by the defendant company was taken on record.
18. In the written statement, the defendant company has taken certain preliminary objections to the effect that this court does not have territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction; the present suit is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff company has clubbed separate claims arising out of separate policies having different surveyors reports and different assessment of losses; the suit of the plaintiff company is barred by limitation as the losses were reported by the plaintiff company and came to be rejected by the defendant company on 18.11.2014, whereas the present suit was filed in the year 2023; the present suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary and proper party and is liable to be rejected as shipping agent should have been made a party etc.
19. On the merits, the defendant company has not denied that the plaintiff company had taken the insurance policies in question but the stand of the defendant company is that the claims of the plaintiff company are not payable as the alleged loss of quantity reported by the plaintiff company neither come within the scope of coverage under the insurance policy nor payable under the terms and conditions of the Marine Cargo Single Voyage (Sea) Policy-Institute KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 9 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) Cargo Clauses (A). According to the defendant company, there was no evidence of any insured marine peril activated when the cargo was pumped from shore tank to ship tank at the time of loading and the ship tank to the shore tank at the time of discharge; defendant company has alleged that shortage was not due to any insured peril and hence the defendant company has no liability under the insurance policy, therefore the claims of the plaintiff company were rejected.
20. It is the further stand of the defendant company that the Marine Cargo Policy makes it crystal clear that company insures against loss or damage or expenses subject to clauses, endorsements, conditions and warranties mentioned in the schedule and attached thereto which included Institute Cargo Clause-A. By referring to clause 4.2 of the Institute Cargo Clause (A), it is stated that in no case shall this insurance cover for ordinary leakage, ordinary losses, weight or volume and ordinary wear and tear of the subject matter insured.
21. The defendant company has also referred to the reports of the surveyors and it was stated that the cause of shortage is attributed to the transfer of goods from shore tank to the ship's tank at the port at the time of KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 10 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) loading and discharge. It is also stated that the alleged shortage, as reported by the plaintiff company, is a normal phenomenon in transit of chemicals by ship and the actual shortage would be found to be an ordinary leakage or ordinary loss in weight or volume, which is as per the nature of the subject matter insured. Hence the present suit of the plaintiff company is liable to be rejected.
22. The defendant company has filed an affidavit of admission and denial of the documents along with the written statement.
23. Thereafter, the plaintiff company filed the rejoinder to the written statement of the defendant company denying the allegations made by the defendant company and reiterated the facts as mentioned in the plaint. Along with the rejoinder, the plaintiff company has also filed the statement of admission and denial of documents.
24. After completion of pleadings, vide order dated 18.10.2023, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court:-
1. Whether this court has no Territorial Jurisdiction as well as Pecuniary Jurisdiction to try the present suit, as alleged by defendant in the written statement? (OPD)
2. Whether the present suit is not maintainable being barred by Limitation, as alleged by the defendant in the KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 11 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) written statement ? (OPD)
3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged by the defendant in the written statement ? (OPD)
4. Whether the present suit is not maintainable the plaintiff having clubbed together separate claims arising out of the separate policies having different survey reports and different assessment of loss, as alleged by the defendants in the written statement ? (OPD)
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the principal amount, as asked for in plaint? (OPP)
6. In case if issue no. 5 is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest, as asked for in the plaint? (OPP).
7. Relief
25. Vide order dated 28.11.2023, the Schedule of Second Case Management hearing was fixed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court and Ld. Court Commissioner was appointed to record the evidence of both the parties.
26. The Ld. Court Commissioner has already submitted his report to this court.
27. In support of its case, the plaintiff company has examined two witnesses i.e. PW1 Ashok Kumar Maharshi, an officer in the plaintiff company and PW2 Satish Kumar, ASO from District Forum. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff company and the plaintiff evidence was closed.
KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 12 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023)
28. The defendant company has examined one Smt Renuka Chaudhary, Manager, as DW1, who has filed her evidence by way of affidavit and Sh.S.K Chakraborty, surveyor as DW2. No other witness was examined by the defendant company and the defendant's evidence was closed.
29. PW1 Ashok Kumar Maharshi has deposed on the lines of the averments made in the plaint in his evidence filed by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He also relied upon the documents i.e Board Resolution ExPW1/1, Copy of Memorandum and Articles of Association of the plaintiff company ExPW1/2 (colly), Copy of Final Order dated 24.03.2017 of the Consumer Complaint filed by plaintiff Ex-PW-1/3, Copy of Status Report and order dated 05.04.2019 of the Consumer Appeal filed by plaintiff before State Commission Delhi Ex-PW-1/4 (Colly), Copy of Order dated 09.02.2022 of the Consumer District Commission Ex-PW-1/5, Copy of Complaint with supporting affidavit in Policy No. 272200/21/2015/393 Filed By Plaintiff Co. before Consumer Forum, Central, Delhi Ex-PW-1/6 (Colly),,Copy of Board Resolution dated 27.08.2015 Filed By Plaintiff Co. before Consumer Forum, Central, Delhi, Ex-PW-1/7, Copy of Insurance Policy KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 13 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) 272200/21/2015/393 Ex-PW-1/8 , Copy of Invoice No. 8895804869 Dated 23.07.2014 Ex-PW-1/9, Copy of Bills of Lading No. OM/RTMINA/01 to 4 and Survey Report Dated 23.07.2014 Ex-PW-1/10 (Colly), Copy of Lehnkering report dated 23.07.2014 Ex- PW-1/11 (Colly), Copy of warehouse bills of entry Ex-PW-1/12, Copy of e mail dated 16.09.2014 sent by plaintiff to defendant Ex-PW-1/13, SGS India Ltd. report dated 17.09.2014 Ex-PW-1/14 (Colly), Copy of Letter dt 27.10.2014 along with claim bill sent by plaintiff to defendant Ex-PW-1/15, Copy of Letter dt 29.10.2014, sent by defendant to plaintiff Ex- PW-1/16, Copy of Letter dt 17.11.2014, sent by plaintiff to defendant Ex-PW-1/17, Copy of repudiation letter dt. 18.11.2014 received by the plaintiff from the defendant Ex-PW-1/18, Copy of Written Statement filed by defendant before consumer forum Ex-PW-1/19 (Colly), Copy of Order dated 09.02.2022 of the Consumer District Commission Ex- PW-1/20, Copy of Complaint with supporting affidavit in Policy No. 272200/21/2015/1096 Filed By Plaintiff Co. before Consumer Forum, Central, Delhi Ex- PW-1/21 (Colly), Copy of Board Resolution dated 27.08.2015 Filed By Plaintiff Co. before Consumer Forum, Central, Delhi Ex-PW-1/22, Copy of Insurance Policy 272200/21/2015/1096 Ex-PW-1/23 (Colly), KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 14 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) Copy of Invoice No. 8895806768 Dated 31.01.2015 Ex-PW-1/24, Copy of Bills of Lading No. INA/RTMMUM/01 & 2 and Survey Report Dated 31.01.2015 Ex-PW-1/25 (Colly), Copy of Saybolt survey report dated 31.01.2015 Ex-PW-1/26 (Colly), Copy of warehouse bill of entry Ex-PW-1/27, Copy of e mail dated 27.02.2015 sent by plaintiff to defendant Ex-PW-1/28, Copy of Letter dt 26.02.2015 and email dated 03.03.2015 sent by plaintiff to defendant Ex-PW-1/29 (Colly), SGS India Ltd. report dated 11.03.2015 Ex-PW-1/30 (Colly), Copy of Letter dt 09.03.2015, sent by plaintiff to Allied shipping agency Ex-PW-1/31, Copy of Letter dt 13.03.2015, sent by plaintiff to defendant along with Claim Bill and form Ex-PW-1/32, OTR dated 02.03.2015 Ex-PW-1/33, Copy of Letter dt 19.03.2015 sent by defendant to plaintiff Ex-PW-1/34, Copy of Letter dt 26.03.2015 sent by plaintiff to defendant Ex- PW-1/35, Copy of repudiation letter dt. 18.11.2014 received by the plaintiff from the defendant Ex- PW-1/36, Copy of Written Statement filed by defendant before consumer forum Ex-PW-1/37 (Colly), Copy of Order dated 09.02.2022 of the Consumer District Commission Ex-PW-1/38, Copy of Complaint with supporting affidavit in Policy No. 272200/21/2014/609 & 592 Filed By Plaintiff Co.
KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 15 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) before Consumer Forum, Central, Delhi Ex-PW-1/39 (Colly), Copy of Board Resolution dated 27.08.2015 Filed By Plaintiff Co. before Consumer Forum, Central, Delhi Ex-PW-1/40, Copy of cover note no. 324471 and Insurance Policy no. 272200/21/2014/609 & 592 Ex-PW-1/41 (Colly), Copy of Invoice No. 92026603 Ex-PW-1/42, Copy of Bills of Lading No. B/L NO. 527(A), (C) & (D) Dated 13.09.2013 Ex- PW-1/43 (Colly), Copy of warehouse bill of entry Ex-PW-1/44, Copy of Survey Report dated 17.10.2013 & 04.11.2013 Ex-PW-1/45 (Colly), Copy of Letter dt 27.10.2013, sent by plaintiff to J. M. Baxi & co. shipping agency Ex-PW-1/46, Copy of letter dated 09.12.2013 sent by plaintiff to defendant along with claim bill & form Ex-PW-1/47 (Colly) , Copy of Letter dt 24.03.2014 and email dated 31.10.2014 sent by plaintiff to defendant Ex-PW-1/48 (Colly), Copy of Letter dt 29.10.2014 and e mail dated 31.10.2014 sent by defendant to plaintiff Ex-PW-1/49 (Colly), Copy of email dated 03.11.2014 sent by plaintiff to defendant Ex-PW-1/50, Copy of Letter dt 17.11.2014 sent by plaintiff to defendant Ex-PW-1/51, Copy of repudiation letter dt. 18.11.2014 received by the plaintiff from the defendant Ex-PW-1/52, Copy of Written Statement filed by defendant before consumer forum Ex-PW-1/53 (Colly), KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 16 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023)
30. PW2 Satish Kumar is a summoned witness from District Forum, who produced the original diary register of 16.05.2016 to 29.12.2016 having reference of CC No. 384/2016, 386/2016 and 383/2016 ExPW2/1 before the Ld. District Forum.
31. PW2 Satish Kumar was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant company despite opportunity being given.
32. DW1 Renuka Chaudhary tendered her evidence by way of affidavit ExDW-1/A and has deposed on the lines of stand taken in the written statement filed by the defendant company. She has relied upon the documents i.e Power of attorney ExDW1/1, the Institute Cargo Clauses (A) is ExDW1/2.
33. DW2 S.K Chakraborty, Surveyor was also examined by the defendant company who also filed his evidence by way of affidavit ExDW2/A and has relied upon Survey report dated 04.11.2013 ExDW2/1.
34. DW2 S.K Chakraborty was cross examined on behalf of the plaintiff company.
35. Here it is pertinent to mention that at the stage when evidence of the defendant company has already been recorded, the defendant company moved an KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 17 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) application under order 16 Rule (1) (3) r/w section 151 CPC making a request to summon additional witnesses to be examined by the defendant company. Vide aforesaid application defendant company wanted to produce and prove "Institute Cargo Clauses (A) as applicable to Marine Cargo- Single Voyage (Sea) Policy".
36. The said application moved on behalf of the defendant company was allowed by this Court vide order dated 27.04.2024 subject to the cost whereby the defendant company was allowed to summon the concerned witness. Pursuant to the summons issued by the court, one Sh. R.Pardha Saradhi appeared on 06.5.2024, and he was examined as DW2 in another connected case bearing no. 763/2023. In that case, he proved the Institute Cargo Clauses (A) as applicable to Marine Cargo- Single Voyage (Sea) Policy as Ex DW2/A.
37. Both the parties made a request to place the copy of the said document ExDW2/A in each of the files, including the present case and it was stated that in that eventuality there would not be any need to examine the witness Sh. R. Pardha Saradhi as one of the defendant witnesses in each and every case. It was also stated on behalf of both the parties that they do not have any objection, if the said document KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 18 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) ExDW2/A is read and considered into evidence while deciding the case at the time of final hearing.
38. Considering the request of both the parties and no objection from their side, the copy of Institute Cargo Clauses (A) as applicable to Marine Cargo- Single Voyage (Sea) Policy ExDW2/A, was directed to be placed in each of the cases pending between the parties including the present one and it was directed that same shall be read in evidence at the stage of final disposal of the cases. Accordingly, the present case reached the stage of final arguments.
39. When the case was at the stage of final arguments, the plaintiff company moved an application under order 6 Rule 17 r/w section 151 CPC seeking certain amendments in the plaint. By way of the said application plaintiff company had made a request to amend para 7 and 9 of the plaint which basically is having the details of the consignments and surveyor reports. It was stated on behalf of the plaintiff company that there being 13 cases pending between the parties, therefore, inadvertently, there are typographical mistakes regarding the details of the consignments and surveyor reports which need to be corrected.
KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 19 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023)
40. Ld. Counsel for the defendant company submitted that he has no objection if the aforesaid application of the plaintiff company is allowed with a rider that it should not be presumed that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff company stand proved as the defendant company has already taken objections regarding mode of proof of certain documents.
41. Vide order dated 20.7.2024, the aforesaid application was allowed/disposed of subject to certain conditions as mentioned therein. The defendant company was given the liberty to file the written statement and in case no amended written statement is filed, the original statement filed on behalf of the defendant company shall be considered and the case again came to be adjourned for final argument. Pertinent to mention that the defendant company has not filed any amended written statement, therefore, the written statement filed originally at the initial stage has been considered.
42. Ld. Counsels for both the parties have filed the written synopsis of arguments and have argued the matter orally as well at length. Their arguments shall be considered while giving the findings on the issues.
43. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff company has relied upon the following judicial pronouncements:-
KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 20 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023)
a) M.P Steel Corporation Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, (2015) 7 SCC 58
b) Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd vs National Insurance Company Ltd , (2019) 19 SCC 70.
c) Bharat Watch Company Vs NIC (2019) 6 SCC 212.
d) National Insurance Company Ltd Vs Mangalagowri Cashew Industries, II (2006) CPJ-32 (National Commission)
e) Bajaj Allianz GIC Ltd vs G P Petroleums Ltd. (State Commission Mumbai), Appeal No. A/16/2917
f) Texco Marketing Pvt Ltd vs Tata AIG Capital General Insurance Company Ltd and Ors, IX (2022) SLT 144
g) Narsingh Ispat Ltd Vs OIC Capital, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 535.
h) Mavji Kanji Jungi & Anrs vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. I (2021) CPJA 435 ( National Commission)
i) Mappie International Ltd Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, (NCDRC, New Delhi ) CC N. 5 of 2015
j) Sri Venkaterswara Syndicate Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd II (2010) SLT 664
44. Ld. Counsel for the defendant company has relied upon the following judicial authorities:
a) House of Lords in case of British and Foreign Marine Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Gaunt ( 1921) 2 AC 41 (HL)
b) New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Hira Lal Ramesh Chand and Ors, AIR 2008 SC 2620
c) Josita Antony vs New India Assurance Company Ltd, II (2006) ACC 713
d) J.M.F Sea Foods, Alleppey and Ors vs National Insurance Co. Ltd, Alleppey, AIR 1992 Ker 202.
e) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors Vs The KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 21 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) State of Madhya Pradesh , AIR 2020 SC 2237.
f) General Assurance Society Ltd vs Chandumull Jain and Anr. , 1966 (3) SCR 500
g) Consolidated Engineering Enterprises vs Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and Ors ( 2008) 7 SCC 169.
h) Ghasi Ram & Ors Vs Chait Ram Saini & Ors (1998) 6 SCC 200.
i) Maidi Bhikashmiah & Anrs Vs. Venugopalrao & Ors, 1958 SCC OnLine AP 206.
j) Hassan Chand & Sons Vs H.H Majaraja Shri Gaj Singh, 1961 SCC OnLine Raj 125.
k) Sohan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors, 1977 WLN (UC) 96.
l) Bihar Supply Syndicate Vs Asiatic Navigation (1993) 2 SCC 639
m) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs Peacock Plywood (P) Ltd. 2004 SCC OnLine Cal 681.
45. I have gone through the material available on record and heard the Ld. Counsel for both the parties. I have also gone through the case laws cited at bar.
Issue No.1 Whether this Court has no Territorial Jurisdiction as well as Pecuniary Jurisdiction to try the present suit, as alleged by defendant in the written statement? (OPD)
46. During the arguments, on the query being raised by this court to the Ld. Counsel for the defendant regarding the issue of jurisdiction, Ld. Counsel for the defendant submitted that he is not pressing the said issue and the same may be disposed off accordingly.
KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 22 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023)
47. Plaintiff company has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs 15,45,512/- (Rs Fifteen Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Five Hundred and Twelve only) against the defendant company, which is well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court. Further, the address of the defendant company, as per memo of parties is of Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110002, which falls within the jurisdiction of this court. There is no dispute that cause of action also arose within the jurisdiction of this court. Although, the Ld. Counsel for the defendant has not pressed this issue, however, even otherwise also, as discussed herein above, this court has the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. Hence, issue no.1 is answered accordingly.
Issue no.2 Whether the present suit is not maintainable being barred by Limitation, as alleged by the defendant in the written statement? (OPD)
48. In the written statement, one of the objections taken by the defendant company is that the suit filed by the plaintiff company is barred by limitation. Ld. Counsel for the defendant company submitted that it is not in dispute that the claims of the plaintiff company were rejected on 18.11.2014; the present suit was filed in the year 2023 which is beyond the period of KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 23 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) limitation. He further submitted that the plaintiff company cannot be given the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act,1963 as neither the relief to file the fresh suit was sought by the plaintiff company nor was granted by the Ld. District Forum; the present proceedings are distinct from the proceedings which took place before the consumer forum; the period of limitation in both the said proceedings is different ; the proceedings before the consumer forum were not prosecuted diligently and in good faith and the plaintiff company was well aware that the case of the plaintiff company would not fall under the definition of consumer. By referring to the order passed by the Consumer Forum, Ld. Counsel for the defendant company submitted that the complaints of the plaintiff company were dismissed vide order dated 09.2.2022. The plaintiff company approached the Pre-Litigation Mediation on 11.01.2023, therefore, the protection as available u/s 14 of the Limitation Act would not be available to the plaintiff company.
49. In reply to that Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff company submitted that the claims of the plaintiff company were repudiated while communications dated 18.11.2014; plaintiff company filed the complaint cases before the District Forum on KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 24 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) 26.10.2016 which were finally returned on 09.02.2022. He further submitted that the copy of the order of District Forum dated 09.2.2022 was received by the plaintiff company on 07.03.2022, therefore, the period from 26.10.2016 to 07.3.2022 spent before the District Forum has to be excluded. He further submitted that the plaintiff company had diligently followed up its complaints before the Consumer Forum and there were repeated rounds of litigations about the maintainability of the complaints; the complaints were returned vide order dated 09.2.2022; the defendant company admitted the part of the said processes and has participated in the same before the Consumer Forum and the Consumer Forum had not adjudicated the dispute on merits. He further submitted that the relief sought by the plaintiff company before Consumer Forum and before this court is identical and in a separate application moved u/s 14 of the Limitation Act, the plaintiff company has given details indicating how the present suit is within limitation. He further submitted that the time spent by the plaintiff company before the Consumer Forum has to be excluded.
50. It will be relevant to refer to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which reads as under:-
KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 25 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) "14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction.--(1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.
(2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 2 of Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply in relation to a fresh suit instituted on permission granted by the court under Rule 1 of that Order, where such permission is granted on the ground that the first suit must fail by reason of a defect in the jurisdiction of the court or other cause of a like nature.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section--
(a) in excluding the time during which a former civil proceeding was pending, the day on which that proceeding was instituted and the day on which it ended shall both be counted;
(b) a plaintiff or an applicant resisting an appeal shall be deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding;
(c) misjoinder of parties or of causes of action shall be deemed to be a cause of a like nature with defect of jurisdiction."
KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 26 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023)
51. Section 14 of the Limitation Act deals with exclusion of time of proceeding spent bona fide in a court without jurisdiction. On analysis of the said section, it becomes evident that the following conditions must be satisfied before Section 14 can be pressed into service:
(1) Both the prior and subsequent proceedings are civil proceedings prosecuted by the same party; (2) The prior proceeding had been prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith;
(3) The failure of the prior proceeding was due to defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature;
(4) The earlier proceeding and the latter proceeding must relate to the same matter in issue and;
(5) Both the proceedings are in a court.
52. Here I may refer to a few judgements touching the controversy in question qua limitation. In the case of Laxmi Engineering Works vs P.S.G. Industrial Institute,1995 SCC (3) 583, the following order of National Commission dated 07-12-1993 was assailed before Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
"From the facts appearing on record it is manifest that the complainant is carrying on the business of manufacture of machine parts on a large scale for the purpose of earning profit and significantly one single item of machinery in respect of which the complaint petition was filed by him before the State Commission itself is of the value of Rs. 21 lakhs and odd. In the circumstances, we fail to see how the conclusion can be escaped that the machinery, in question which is alleged to be KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 27 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) defective was purchased for a commercial purpose. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to be regarded as a consumer and the complaint petition filed by him was not maintainable before the State Commission. He order passed by the State Commission is set aside. The complaint petition is dismissed." The National Commission, however, observed that their order does not preclude the appellant from pursuing his remedy by way of ordinary civil suit."
53. In that case Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"25.So far as the present case is concerned we must hold (in agreement with the National Commission), having regard to the nature and character of the machine and the material on record that it is not goods which the appellant purchased for use by himself exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment, as explained hereinabove.
26.The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed but without costs. If the appellant chooses to file a suit for the relief claimed in these proceedings, he can do so according to law and in such a case he can claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, while computing the period of limitation prescribed for such a suit."
54. In a similar case of Saushish Diamonds Ltd. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.,(1998) 8 SCC357 , the appellant had approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for recovery of the loss of diamonds entrusted to the Commission Agent. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in its order dated 28-9-1995 KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 28 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) passed the order holding that since the Insurance Company has repudiated the claims, it declined to grant the relief. Thus, an appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.:-
"2. Shri Harish Salve, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, contended that in view of the policy undertaken by the respondent, the Commission could have granted the relief, instead of relegating the appellant to a civil action. We find no force in the contention. We have gone through the stand taken by the respondent in the repudiation. The very interpretation of the policy itself is a subject-matter of the dispute. Under these circumstances, the Commission rightly relegated the parties to a civil action. It is true that limitation has run out against the appellant during the pendency of the proceedings. Therefore, the time taken between the date of the filing of the claim before the Commission and the date of its disposal, namely, 28-9-1995 would be considered by the civil court for exclusion under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appeal is accordingly dismissed."
55. In Basheer Ahmed Noor-ul-Hussain Farooqui Vs. Shaikh Hamad, MANU/MH/1527/2021, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, while considering the contentions regarding the applicability of section 14, Limitation Act upon the time spent by the plaintiff bona fide before a Court without jurisdiction. It was held:-
"It is thus material to note, that the District Consumer Forum, had entertained the plea of the plaintiff for a direction to the defendant to execute the sale deed upon the receipt of the balance consideration and had issued an according direction. It is quite another matter altogether, that KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 29 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) the State Commission by its order dated 04.01.2010, dismissed the claim of the plaintiff and directed him to approach the Civil Court which order was confirmed by the National Commission on 14.03.2011 immediately after which the plaintiff approached the Civil Court on 13.04.2011 with the suit for specific performance. The very fact that the District Forum, had ruled in favour of the plaintiff would indicate that the plaintiff had prosecuted the remedy before the Consumer Forum diligently and bonafidely. In a series of decisions, namely, Laxmi Engineering Works; Saushish Diamonds Ltd.; M/s Deokar Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Shangrilla Apartments Co- Operative Housing Society ltd (Supra), it has been held, that prosecution of a remedy before the Consumer Forum, would be a legal and valid ground, to invoke and apply the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. There is no reason whatsoever, why the same benefit, cannot be granted to the plaintiff, specifically in light of the fact, that the District Consumer Forum in fact entertained the plea of the plaintiff and had granted relief. It therefore cannot be said that prosecution of the remedy by the plaintiff before the authorities under the Consumer Protection Act was either malafide, or with knowledge that the same was not maintainable. Ramji Pandey (Supra) upon which reliance has been placed by Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondent, is on a different footing altogether as in that case, the initial institution of the suit itself, was in the proper forum that is the Civil Court and it was not a case where at the inception, the proceedings were filed and prosecuted in a forum which subsequently was held to be without authority. The courts below, have failed to consider the above position, in light of the settled position of law, and therefore, the finding in this regard, cannot be sustained. It is therefore held, that the suit as filed by the plaintiff, was maintainable in view of the availability and applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, to the plaintiff, for if the period spent before the Consumer Forum and the Higher Authorities under the Consumer KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 30 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) Protection Act was subtracted, then the suit filed by the plaintiff, was clearly within the limitation as prescribed under Section 54 of the Limitation Act."
56. In the case of Purni Devi Vs Babu Ram , 2024 INSC 259, by referring to the cases of Consolidated Engg. Enterprises vs The Principal Secretary (Irrigation Department) & Ors, (2008) 7 SCC 169 and the case of Sesh Nath Singh V. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Coop Bank Ltd, (2021) 7 SCC 313, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
34. The judgment of this Court in M.P. Steel (Supra) discussed the phrases, "due diligence" and "in good faith" for the purposes of invocation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. While considering the application of Section 14 to the Customs Act, it was observed:
"10. We might also point out that Conditions 1 to 4 mentioned in the Consolidated Engg. case have, in fact, been met by the Plaintiff. It is clear that both the prior and subsequent proceedings are civil proceedings prosecuted by the same party. The prior proceeding had been prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith, as has been explained in Consolidated Engg. [(2008) 7 SCC 169] itself. These phrases only mean that the party who invokes Section 14 should not be guilty of negligence, lapse or inaction. Further, there should be no pretended mistake intentionally made with a view to delaying the proceedings or harassing the opposite party.
49. ....... the expression "the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding" needs to be construed in a manner which advances the object sought KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 31 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) to be achieved, thereby advancing the cause of justice." (emphasis supplied)
35. The judgments in Consolidated Engg. Enterprises (Supra) and M.P. Steel (Supra) have been followed consistently by this Court. For instance in Sesh Nath Singh v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Coop. Bank Ltd. 5 (2-Judge Bench), while holding Section 14 to be applicable to applications under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the SARFAESI Act, it was observed:-
"75. Section 14 of the Limitation Act is to be read as a whole. A conjoint and careful reading of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 14 makes it clear that an applicant who has prosecuted another civil proceeding with due diligence, before a forum which is unable to entertain the same on account of defect of jurisdiction or any other cause of like nature, is entitled to exclusion of the time during which the applicant had been prosecuting such proceeding, in computing the period of limitation. The substantive provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 14 do not say that Section 14 can only be invoked on termination of the earlier proceedings, prosecuted in good faith."
57. Here it would be relevant to refer to the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in the case of M.P. Steel Corporation (supra), which are as under:-
" 34. It now remains to consider the decision of a 2-Judge Bench reported in P. Sarathy v. State Bank of India, (2000) 5 SCC 355. This judgment has held that an abortive proceeding before the appellate authority under Section 41 of the Tamil KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 32 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) Nadu Shops and Establishment Act would attract the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act inasmuch as the appellant in this case had been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding before the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, which appeal was dismissed on the ground that the said Act was not applicable to nationalized banks and that, therefore, such appeal would not be maintainable. This Court made a distinction between "Civil Court" and "court' and expanded the scope of Section 14 stating that any authority or Tribunal having the trappings of a Court would be a "court" within the meaning of Section 14. It must be remembered that the word "Court" refers only to a proceeding which proves to be abortive. In this context, for Section 14 to apply, two conditions have to be met. First, the primary proceeding must be a suit, appeal or application filed in a Civil Court. Second, it is only when it comes to excluding time in an abortive proceeding that the word "Court" has been expanded to include proceedings before tribunals.
35. This judgment is in line with a large number of authorities which have held that Section 14 should be liberally construed to advance the cause of justice - see: Shakti Tubes Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (2009) 1 SCC 786 and the judgments cited therein.
Obviously, the context of Section 14 would require that the term "court" be liberally construed to include within it quasi-judicial Tribunals as well. This is for the very good reason that the principle of Section 14 is that whenever a person bonafide prosecutes with due diligence another proceeding which proves to be abortive because it is without jurisdiction, or otherwise no decision could be rendered on merits, the time taken in such proceeding ought to be excluded as otherwise the person who has approached the Court in such proceeding would be penalized for no fault of his own. This judgment does not further the case of Shri Viswanathan in any way. The question that has to be answered in this case is whether suits, appeals or applications referred to by the KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 33 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) Limitation Act are to be filed in courts. This has nothing to do with "civil proceedings" referred to in Section 14 which may be filed before other courts or authorities which ultimately do not answer the case before them on merits but throw the case out on some technical ground. Obviously the word "court" in Section 14 takes its colour from the preceding words "civil proceedings". Civil proceedings are of many kinds and need not be confined to suits, appeals or applications which are made only in courts stricto sensu. This is made even more clear by the explicit language of Section 14 by which a civil proceeding can even be a revision which may be to a quasi-judicial tribunal under a particular statute".
58. Coming back to the case at hand, it is not in dispute that initially the complaints of the plaintiff company were returned by the District Forum vide order dated 24.3.2017 ExPW1/3. From the order dated 24.03.2017 ExPW1/3, it is evident that Ld. District Forum observed that it has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaints filed by the plaintiff company. The matter landed before National Commission, then before State Commission and finally vide order dated 09.02.2022, again the complaints of the plaintiff company were returned by the District Forum vide order dated 09.2.2022 ExPW1/5 observing that "the dispute raised by the complainant company as involved in the instant case is a dispute between "business to business"
and is not covered under the Act as observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmi Engg. Works (Supra). The instant complaint is therefore dismissed as not maintainable KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 34 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) before Consumer Commission under the Act". From the said order it is evident that District Forum had dismissed the complaints of the plaintiff company on the ground that the purpose of transaction between the parties were commercial and the complainant ( plaintiff company) is not a consumer under section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. Meaning thereby, the District Forum did not consider the complaints of the plaintiff company on merits.
59. Having said so, there would be no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion that the case of the plaintiff company comes within the ambit of section 14 of the Limitation Act. In the present case it is not in dispute that the proceedings before the District Forum were between the same parties i.e M/s KLJ Plasticizers Ltd vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd who are the plaintiff company and defendant company respectively before this Court. There would be no denial of the facts that the proceedings before the District Forum were civil proceedings and so is the case before this Court. There is nothing on record suggesting that the plaintiff company had not prosecuted its complaints with due diligence and in good faith. Assailing the order of District Forum before the Appellate Authorities i.e State Commission and National Commission indicates KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 35 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) that plaintiff company was diligent enough in prosecuting its claims before the District Forum. The orders passed by the District Forum, State Commission and National Commission would make it further clear that the plaintiff company had tried its best to get its claims adjudicated by the District Forum. As noted herein above the proceedings came to be dismissed by the District Forum on technical grounds of jurisdiction. Last but not the least, the issue between the parties before the District Forum as well as before this Court are the same i.e according to the plaintiff company the repudiation of the claims of the plaintiff company by the defendant company is illegal.
60. In view of my aforesaid discussion and the observations made in various judgments, as noted, now it is no more res Integra that prosecution of a remedy before the Consumer Forum, would be a legal and valid ground, to invoke and apply the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. There is no reason whatsoever why the same benefit cannot be granted to the plaintiff company in the present case. It is therefore cannot be said that prosecution of the remedy by the Plaintiff company before the authorities under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 was either malafide, or with knowledge that the same was not KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 36 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) maintainable. Thus, the plaintiff company is entitled to exclusion of the time during which the plaintiff company had prosecuted its claims before the District Forum.
61. Having said so, now it is to be seen whether the present suit has been instituted within the period of limitation or not even after giving the benefits of section 14 of the Limitation Act.
62. According to the plaintiff company, the claims of the plaintiff company were repudiated by the defendant company vide communications dated 18.11.2014 ExPW1/18, ExPW1/36 and ExPW1/52. That being so, the cause of action in the present case arose on 18.11.2014. Thus, the limitation period would start from 19.11.2014.
63. In ordinary circumstances, the period of limitation for filing the present suit for recovery would have expired on 18.11.2017.
64. In the present case, the plaintiff company has filed a separate application under section 14 of the Limitation Act seeking to exclude a certain period while calculating the period of limitation and has sought the benefit under section 14 of the Limitation Act. According to the plaintiff company as pleaded in KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 37 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) the said application, the plaintiff company is said to have preferred the complaints to the District Forum on 26.10.2016. Meaning thereby, the plaintiff company kept waiting during the period from 19.11.2014 to 26.10.2016. Even as per the case of the plaintiff company, the complaints before the District Forum were filed after One Year Eleven Months and Eight Days. As per the case of the plaintiff company, the last order passed by the District Forum was of 09.02.2022 as the complaints of the plaintiff company came to be dismissed or returned on the ground of maintainability.
65. Pertinent to mention that during the argument, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff pointed out that although the said order of the District Forum is dated 9.2.2022, but it was prepared on 7.03.2022, therefore, the period from 26.10.2016 to 07.03.2022, has to be excluded. I do find support in the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel of the plaintiff as from the record it is evident that the order dated 09.02.2022 appears to have been made ready on 07.3.2022 and served on the plaintiff company. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has not disputed the same. That being so, the plaintiff company has spent the time before the Consumer Forum from 26.10.2016 to 07.03.2022 and that has to KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 38 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) be excluded in terms of section 14 of Limitation Act.
66. The limitation period started from 19.11.2014 and it stopped on 26.10.2016 at the time when the plaintiff company preferred complaints before the District Forum. The limitation would again start w.e.f. 8.3.2022 i.e. one day after the day when the complaints were returned by the District Consumer Forum and were received by the plaintiff company. The present suit has been filed on 11.5.2023 i.e after One year two months and four days. The total period spent by the plaintiff company, excluding the period spent before District Forum, would be One Year Eleven Months and Eight Days + One year two months and four days i.e Three years one Month and twelve Days. The plaintiff company can be given the benefit under section 14 of the Limitation Act,1963 only for that period which was spent before the District Forums.
67. We can understand it from another angle also.
There are three blocks of the time periods which are relevant for calculating the period of limitation. The first block would be from 19.11.2014 to 26.10.2016. This is a period which was spent by the plaintiff company and no claims were preferred by the plaintiff company before any Court, Tribunal or Judicial KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 39 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) Authority. The second block would be the time spent by the plaintiff company before the District Forum i.e from 26.10.2016 to 7.3.2022. This time has to be excluded and the third block would be the period from 8.3.2022 to 11.5.2023. As far as calculating the period of limitation is concerned, the time spent in first block and third block would be added which comes as noted herein above i.e Three years one Month and twelve Days.
68. Further, in terms of the proviso attached to the section 12 A of the Commercial Courts Act,2015, the time spent in Pre-Litigation Mediation is to be excluded while calculating the period of limitation. In the present case, as per the non starter report, the application before the Pre-Litigation Mediation was preferred on 11.01.2023 and the non-starter report was released on 11.04.2023, therefore, around three months were spent by the plaintiff company before the Pre-litigation Mediation and that period also has to be excluded. As noted herein above, the plaintiff company took Three years one Month and twelve Days for filing the present case. After giving the benefits of three months u/s 12 A of the Commercial Court Act, the plaintiff company finally took Two Years ten Months and twelve Days time in filing the KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 40 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) present suit i.e Three years one Month and twelve Days - Three months. That being so, the present suit is well within the period of limitation. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff company and against the defendant company .
Issue No. 3Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged by the defendant in the written statement? OPD
69. The next objection taken by the defendant company is that the present suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties and is liable to be dismissed. Ld. Counsel for the defendant company submitted that the shipper or the shipping agent to whom also the plaintiff company had raised the claims, was a necessary party and he has not been made defendant in the present case. He submitted that the goods in question were transported by the shipper and it was the responsibility of the shipper to make the loss good, as per the case of the plaintiff company, therefore, the shipping agent was a necessary party which is not there, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
70. Refuting the allegations of the defendant company, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff company submitted that as per the insurance policies issued by KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 41 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) the defendant company, it was not obligatory for the plaintiff company to implead the shipping agent in case of losses covered under the policy. He submitted that the plaintiff company had lodged a protest on the shipper therefore, preserving the rights to subrogation and it cannot be expected from the plaintiff company to indulge in litigation with the shipper to claim the indemnity from the Insurer.
71. Before proceeding further, I may mention that the general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff company in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff company . But this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties. The said sub-rule is extracted below:
"10. (2) Court may strike out or add parties .--The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 42 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added."
72. The said provision makes it clear that a court may, at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or even without any application, and on such terms as may appear to it to be just, direct that any of the following persons may be added as a party: (a) any person who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, but not added; or (b) any person whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit. In short, the court is given the discretion to add as a party any person who is found to be a necessary party or proper party.
73. Here I may refer to the case of Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd., (2010) 7 SCC 417, wherein it was held that:-
"15. A "necessary party" is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a "necessary party" is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A "proper party" is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 43 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance."
74. In the present case, it is not in dispute that all the consignments belonging to the plaintiff company were insured by the defendant company and for that separate cover notes and insurance policies were issued. As such it is also not in dispute, rather it has come on record that there was a loss of quantities of the goods which were imported by the plaintiff company. The bone of contention between the parties is whether that losses, as detailed, are covered by the insurance policies or not? It is also a matter of fact that the plaintiff company is stated to have lodged the claims before the Shipper also. There is nothing on record suggesting that it was the pre-condition to accept the claims of the plaintiff company by the defendant company to raise the claims first to the shipper. Further, it is not that the liability of the shipper and the insurance company is joint and several.
75. There was a separate contract of insurance between the plaintiff and the defendant company and KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 44 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) the consideration thereof was the premium to be paid by the plaintiff company to the defendant company and defendant company was under obligation to make the losses good in terms of the clauses of the insurance policy as agreed between the parties, in case it comes within the ambit of the policy. There is no privity of contract between the shipper and the insurance company as such. Therefore, in any claim filed by the plaintiff company against the defendant company, the shipper would not be a necessary or proper party. Therefore, issue No. 3 is decided in favour of the plaintiff company and against the defendant company.
Issue No. 4Whether the present suit is not maintainable the plaintiff having clubbed together separate claims arising out of the separate policies having different survey reports and different assessment of loss, as alleged by the defendants in the written statement? (OPD)
76. The next objection taken by the defendant company is that the present suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff company has clubbed together separate claims arising out of separate policies. Ld. Counsel for the defendant company submitted that for each of the consignments, there was a separate cover note and separate policy. The claims of the plaintiff company have been rejected by the defendant company separately. Therefore, there was a different cause of KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 45 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) action for each of the claims and the plaintiff company cannot be allowed to club the same as one cause of action. He further submitted that the plaintiff company has filed the claims of more than one consignment just to bring the claim within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court. On this ground, the present suit is liable to be rejected.
77. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff company submitted that in the present case, the parties are the same; all the claims were processed and rejected by the defendant company on the same day' all the claims are of the similar nature which came to be dismissed or rejected on the ground by the defendant company. There is a common relief sought by the plaintiff company. He has also taken me to order 2 rule 3 CPC, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff company submitted that the plaintiff company is within its right to club more than one cause of action when the parties are the same.
78. Since the present suit is being challenged for misjoinder of causes of action also, it is pertinent to mention here the law on the point which is as under:
Order 2 Rule 3 CPC "3. Joinder of causes of action.--(1) Save as KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 46 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly;
and any plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly may unite such causes of action in the same suit.
(2) Where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject-matters at the date of instituting the suit." Order 2 Rule 6 CPC "6. Power of court to order separate trials .-- Where it appears to the court that the joinder of causes of action in one suit may embarrass or delay the trial or is otherwise inconvenient, the court may order separate trials or make such other order as may be expedient in the interests of justice."
79. The expression "cause of action" is the fact or facts which give a person a right to judicial relief. A cause of action, thus, means every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which, taken with the law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 47 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) which it is founded.
80. Order 2 Rule 3 CPC provides for the joinder of several causes of action and states that a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly or several plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or defendants jointly may unite them in one suit. The remedy for any possible inconvenience with regard to the said rule is supplied by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 6, which authorises the Court to order separate trials of causes of action which though joined in one suit cannot be conveniently tried or disposed of together.
81. In the case of Prem Lala Nahata v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria, (2007) 2 SCC 551 : , it was held that:-
"11. Order 2 deals with frame of suits. It provides that every suit shall be framed as far as practicable so as to afford grounds for final decision upon the subjects in dispute and to prevent further litigation concerning them. It is also insisted that every suit shall include the whole of the claim that a plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of its subject-matter. There is a further provision that the plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant and the plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant, may unite such causes of action in the same suit. It provides that objection on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action should be taken at the earliest opportunity. It also enables the court, where it KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 48 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) appears to the court that the joinder of causes of action may embarrass or delay the trial or otherwise cause inconvenience, to order separate trials or to make such other order as may be expedient in the interests of justice.
12. Thus, in a case where a plaint suffers from the defect of misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes of action either in terms of Order 1 Rule 1 and Order 1 Rule 3 on the one hand, or Order 2 Rule 3 on the other, the Code itself indicates that the perceived defect does not make the suit one barred by law or liable to rejection. This is clear from Rules 3-A, 4 and 5 of Order 1 of the Code, and this is emphasised by Rule 9 of Order 1 of the Code which provides that no suit shall be defeated by reason of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties and the court may in either case deal with the matter in controversy so far as it regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. This is further emphasised by Rule 10 of Order 1 which enables the court in appropriate circumstances to substitute or add any person as a plaintiff in a suit. Order 2 deals with the framing of a suit and Rule 3 provides that save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of actions against the same defendant and any plaintiffs having causes of actions in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant may unite such causes of action in the same suit. Rule 6 enables the court to order separate trials even in a case of misjoinder of causes of action in a plaint filed.
13. After the amendment of Order 16 Rule 1 in England, it was held by the Court of Appeal in England in Thomas v. Moore [(1918) 1 KB 555 :
87 LKB 577 (CA)] thus:
"Whatever the law may have been at the time when Smurthwaite v. Hannay [1894 AC 494 : (1891-4) All ER Rep 865 (HL)] was decided, joinder of parties and joinder of causes of action are discretionary in this sense, that if they are joined there is no absolute right to have them struck out, but it is discretionary in the Court to do so if it KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 49 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) thinks right."
14. The Privy Council in Mahant Ramdhan Puri v. Chaudhury Lachmi Narain [AIR 1937 PC 42 :
1937 All LJ 556] pointed out: (AIR p. 45) "It is desirable to point out that under the rules as they now stand the mere fact of misjoinder is not by itself sufficient to entitle the defendant to have the proceedings set aside or action dismissed."
Of course, their Lordships were speaking in the context of Section 99 of the Code. Their Lordships referred to the above quoted observation of the Court of Appeal in Thomas v. Moore [(1918) 1 KB 555 : 87 LKB 577 (CA)] in that decision. It is therefore clear that a suit that may be bad for misjoinder of causes of action is not one that could be got struck out or rejected by a defendant as a matter of right and the discretion vests with the court either to proceed with the suit or to direct the plaintiff to take steps to rectify the defect. In fact, the Privy Council in that case noticed that the suit was bad for misjoinder of causes of action. It further noticed that the trial Judge had in spite of the complications created thereby, tried and disposed of the suit satisfactorily. Therefore, there was no occasion for the court to dismiss the suit on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action at the appellate stage.
15. It is well understood that procedure is the handmaid of justice and not its mistress. The scheme of Order 1 and Order 2 clearly shows that the prescriptions therein are in the realm of procedure and not in the realm of substantive law or rights. That the Code considers objections regarding the frame of suit or joinder of parties only as procedural, is further clear from Section 99 of the Code which specifically provides that no decree shall be reversed in appeal on account of any misjoinder of parties or causes of action or non-joinder of parties unless a court finds that the KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 50 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) non-joinder is of a necessary party. This is on the same principle as of Section 21 of the Code which shows that even an objection to territorial jurisdiction of the court in which the suit is instituted, could not be raised successfully for the first time in an appeal against the decree unless the appellant is also able to show consequent failure of justice. The Suits Valuation Act similarly indicates that absence of pecuniary jurisdiction in the court that tried the cause without objection also stands on the same footing. The amendment to Section 24 of the Code in the year 1976 confers power on the court even to transfer a suit filed in a court having no jurisdiction, to a court having jurisdiction to try it. In the context of these provisions with particular reference to the rules in Order 1 and Order 2 of the Code, it is clear that an objection of misjoinder of plaintiffs or misjoinder of causes of action, is a procedural objection and it is not a bar to the entertaining of the suit or the trial and final disposal of the suit. The court has the liberty even to treat the plaint in such a case as relating to two suits and try and dispose them of on that basis.
16. Order 7 Rule 11(d) speaks of the suit being "barred by any law". According to Black's Law Dictionary, bar means, a plea arresting a law suit or legal claim. It means as a verb, to prevent by legal objection. According to Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon, "bar" is that which obstructs entry or egress; to exclude from consideration. It is therefore necessary to see whether a suit bad for misjoinder of parties or of causes of action is excluded from consideration or is barred entry for adjudication. As pointed out already, on the scheme of the Code, there is no such prohibition or a prevention at the entry of a suit defective for misjoinder of parties or of causes of action. The court is still competent to try and decide the suit, though the court may also be competent to tell the plaintiffs either to elect to proceed at the instance of one of the plaintiffs or to proceed with one of the causes of action. On the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure, it cannot therefore be held that a suit barred for misjoinder of parties or of causes of KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 51 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) action is barred by a law, here the Code. This may be contrasted with the failure to comply with Section 80 of the Code. In a case not covered by sub-section (2) of Section 80, it is provided in sub- section (1) of Section 80 that "no suit shall be instituted". This is therefore a bar to the institution of the suit and that is why courts have taken the view that in a case where notice under Section 80 of the Code is mandatory, if the averments in the plaint indicate the absence of a notice, the plaint is liable to be rejected. For, in that case, the entertaining of the suit would be barred by Section 80 of the Code. The same would be the position when a suit hit by Section 86 of the Code is filed without pleading the obtaining of consent of the Central Government if the suit is not for rent from a tenant. Not only are there no words of such import in Order 1 or Order 2 but on the other hand, Rule 9 of Order 1, Rules 1 and 3 of Order 1, and Rules 3 and 6 of Order 2 clearly suggest that it is open to the court to proceed with the suit notwithstanding the defect of misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes of action and if the suit results in a decision, the same could not be set aside in appeal, merely on that ground, in view of Section 99 of the Code, unless the conditions of Section 99 are satisfied. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, can a suit bad for misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes of action be held to be barred by any law within the meaning of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code.
17. Thus, when one considers Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code with particular reference to clause ( d), it is difficult to say that a suit which is bad for misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes of action, is a suit barred by any law. A procedural objection to the impleading of parties or to the joinder of causes of action or the frame of the suit, could be successfully urged only as a procedural objection which may enable the court either to permit the continuance of the suit as it is or to direct the plaintiff or plaintiffs to elect to proceed with a part of the suit or even to try the causes of action joined in the suit as separate suits.
KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 52 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023)
18. It cannot be disputed that the court has power to consolidate suits in appropriate cases. Consolidation is a process by which two or more causes or matters are by order of the court combined or united and treated as one cause or matter. The main purpose of consolidation is therefore to save costs, time and effort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action. The jurisdiction to consolidate arises where there are two or more matters or causes pending in the court and it appears to the court that some common question of law or fact arises in both or all the suits or that the rights to relief claimed in the suits are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions; or that for some other reason it is desirable to make an order consolidating the suits. (See Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 37, para
69.) If there is power in the court to consolidate different suits on the basis that it should be desirable to make an order consolidating them or on the basis that some common questions of law or fact arise for decision in them, it cannot certainly be postulated that the trying of a suit defective for misjoinder of parties or causes of action is something that is barred by law. The power to consolidate recognised in the court obviously gives rise to the position that mere misjoinder of parties or causes of action is not something that creates an obstruction even at the threshold for the entertaining of the suit.
19. It is recognised that the court has wide discretionary power to control the conduct of proceedings where there has been a joinder of causes of action or of parties which may embarrass or delay the trial or is otherwise inconvenient. In that situation, the court may exercise the power either by ordering separate trials of the claims in respect of two or more causes of action included in the same action or by confining the action to some of the causes of action and excluding the others or by ordering the plaintiff or plaintiffs to elect which cause of action is to be proceeded with or which KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 53 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) plaintiff should proceed and which should not or by making such other order as may be expedient. (See Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 37, para
73.) Surely, when the matter rests with the discretion of the court, it could not be postulated that a suit suffering from such a defect is something that is barred by law. After all, it is the convenience of the trial that is relevant and as the Privy Council has observed in the decision noted earlier, the defendant may not even have an absolute right to contend that such a suit should not be proceeded with.
82. In the case of Carlsberg Breweries A/S. Versus Som Distilleries and Breweries Ltd., 2018 Scc OnLine 12912, it was held that:-
"27. Joinder of causes of action-dealt with in Order II Rule 3 enables the plaintiff to " unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly; and any plaintiffs having joinder of causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly may unite such joinder of causes of action in the same suit ." Rule 3(2) states that if there is such joinder of causes of action "jurisdiction of the court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject-matters at the date of instituting the suit.
************************************ 31. An indisputable conclusion from the above authorities is that there is no per se or threshold bar to maintainability of suits, on the perceived ground of misjoinder of causes of action. In more senses than one, the subject of joinder of causes of action is a mirror image of the issue of joinder of parties. Prem Lata Nahata (supra) clearly enunciates that "in a case where a plaint suffers from the defect of misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes of action either in terms of Order I Rule 1 and Order I Rule 3 on the one hand, or Order II Rule 3 on the other, the Code KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 54 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) itself indicates that the perceived defect does not make the suit one barred by law or liable to rejection." The court later analyzed Order VII Rule 11(b) and stated that an objection to the frame of a suit, is at best a procedural one, which cannot result in rejection of a plaint. The court noticed that unlike Section 80 (of the CPC) which enacted a clear substantive bar to the entertainment of a suit unless a procedural step is taken, there is no such bar-or one by necessary implication which renders a suit deemed improper (as to frame of suit for misjoinder of causes of action), liable to rejection. It was noticed, importantly that the objection to joinder or misjoinder is an insufficient ground for appeal, if not raised at the earliest point. A very important conclusion in Prem Lata Nahata (supra) (which has nowhere been disapproved or distinguished from in any subsequent ruling by the Supreme Court) is that objection to misjoinder (of causes of action) is procedural and that rejection of a suit on that count cannot be resorted to:
"Thus, when one considers Order VII Rule 11 of the Code with particular reference to Clause (d), it is difficult to say that a suit which is bad for misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes of action, is a suit barred by any law. A procedural objection to the impleading of parties or to the joinder of causes of action or the frame of the suit, could be successfully urged only as a procedural objection which may enable the Court either to permit the continuance of the suit as it is or to direct the plaintiff or plaintiffs to elect to proceed with a part of the suit or even to try the causes of action joined in the suit as separate suits."
83. Adverting to the case at hand, it is not denied that all the consignments belonged to the plaintiff company and all the consignments have been insured by the defendant company. Meaning thereby, the KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 55 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) parties are the same. The terms and conditions of the insurance policies and cover notes of each of the claims are the same. The grounds on which the claims of the plaintiff company have been repudiated or rejected are also the same. The main bone of contention between the parties in each of the claims is also identical and similar therefore, in terms of order II rule 3 and in view of the judgments as noted herein above, the plaintiff company can club more than one cause of action in a single suit and there is no such prohibition. Only on this ground alone, the suit of the plaintiff company cannot be rejected as the procedural law is the handmaid of justice and not its mistress. Hence, issue No.4 is also decided in favour of the plaintiff company and against the defendant company.
Issue 5.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the principal amount, as asked for in plaint? (OPP)
84. Before proceeding further, I may note certain admitted facts. It is not in dispute that the consignments in question were insured by the plaintiff company with the defendant company and for that separate cover notes and insurance policies were issued. Without going into the issue of whether there were actually short quantities in all the consignments KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 56 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) causing losses to the plaintiff company or not, the moot question which is to be decided by this court is, whether the said losses are covered under the insurance policies or not?
85. Ld. Counsel for the defendant company submitted that no claims are payable qua the alleged loss of quantities reported by the plaintiff company as it neither comes within the scope of coverage nor payable under the terms and conditions of the Marine Cargo Single Voyage (Sea ) Policy and Institute Cargo Clause (A). He has taken me to the clauses of said insurance policies and submitted that as per the exclusion clause 4.2 of the Institute Cargo Clause (A) there was no insurance cover for ordinary leakage, ordinary losses, no weight or volume and ordinary wear and tear subject matter in short. He submitted that above said clause makes it crystal clear that the losses in question are excluded from the Institute Coverage. He further submitted that there was no evidence of insured marine peril activated.
86. Ld. Defence Counsel vehemently argued that the losses of shortage volume and weight were neither due to any peril nor due to unfortunate event covered under the policy but have occurred only because of handling operations of the shipment as well as the KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 57 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) transfer of the material from commencement port to the ship tank and then transfer of the material from the ship to the destination shore tank.
87. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff company vehemently refuted the defense as set up by the defendant company and submitted that the policies which were issued to the plaintiff company are "All Risk Policy" and it covers in its ambit loss of any kind during the coverage/voyage period. He submitted that the obligation of the plaintiff company ends once the losses are reported to the defendant company and it was the defendant company to prove that the losses are not covered under the policies, and mere denial on the part of the defendant company would not be sufficient to reject the claims of the plaintiff company.
88. In reply to the contention of the defendant company regarding the exclusion clause 4.2 of the Institute Cargo Clause (A), Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff company submitted that no such document was ever provided by the defendant company to the plaintiff company alongwith policies and it is during the proceedings before the Consumer Courts that first time the said document was brought to the notice of the plaintiff company. He further submitted that the said clause of Institute Cargo Clause (A) would not KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 58 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) be applicable as in the said clause nowhere it is mentioned that the loss/damage must take place during the course of transit/voyage; 'All Risk Policy' would cover all type of losses including the present one which was caused to the plaintiff company. He further submitted that the defendant company cannot be allowed to go beyond the grounds of rejection as communicated to the plaintiff company vide communications dated 18.11.2014.
89. Here it is pertinent to refer to the proceedings dated 06.05.2024. From the proceedings dated 06.05.2024, it is evident that the copy of the Institute Cargo Clause (A) ExDW2/A was directed to be taken on record in the present case also making it clear that Institute Cargo Clause (A) ExDW2/A shall be read in evidence at the stage of final disposal of the cases. Meaning thereby, now, there is no dispute regarding the admissibility of the said document Institute Cargo Clause (A) ExDW2/A and its mode of proof.
90. Before diving deep into the sea of Marine Insurance, it is imperative to understand the meaning of "Marine Insurance" and "Perils of Sea". Marine insurance is defined under Section 3 of the Marine Insurance Act, 1963 as an agreement whereby the insurer undertakes to indemnify the insured, in the KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 59 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) manner and to the extent thereby agreed, against marine losses, that is to say, the losses incidental to marine adventure. In simple terms, marine insurance is a contract which protects the insured against losses on inland waters or any land risk that may be incidental to any sea voyage. The nature of maritime insurance is essentially a contract of indemnity meaning thereby that the insurance company is liable only for the actual loss or damages suffered by the insurer. However, the insurer cannot be made liable for each and every loss. Under the Act, the loss to an insurable property must arise as a consequence of a maritime peril.
91. Section 2 (e) of the Act defines 'maritime perils'.
Broadly speaking, 'maritime perils' also called as perils of the sea include extraordinary forces of nature which maritime ventures might need to face during the voyage. It includes those accidents or casualties which happen during the voyage by the act of god without any human intervention. Some of the conditions which cover the loss by the perils of the sea are clearly laid down under Sections 55 to 58 of the Marine Insurance Act, 1963.
92. Perils of the sea is defined in The Hague Visby Rules12 which under Article 4(2) (c) defines 'perils' as 'perils' , dangers and accidents of the sea or other KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 60 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) navigable waters, and provides a defence for the carrier from liability for loss or damage. Under the Marine Insurance Act, 1963, loss or damages which occur in the ordinary course of nature or due to own default are not included in the category of maritime perils. These include: Loss damage or expense attributed to willful misconduct of the insured, deliberate damage to/destruction of the goods, ordinary leakage/ordinary loss in weight or volume / ordinary wear and tear of the insured goods, any loss proximately caused by delay, breakage, inherent vice or nature of the subject-matter insured, or for any loss proximately caused by rats or vermin, or for any injury to machinery not proximately caused by maritime perils.
93. Further, the doctrine of Proximate cause or causa proxima is one of the principles of insurance. In insurance law 'causa proxima Non Remota Spectrum' means the immediate and not the remote cause is to be considered. For the purpose of claiming any insurance policy the loss or injury caused must be as a result of any one of the insured perils. Peril is basically the cause of loss or the prime cause of what will give rise to a loss. When the loss is caused by the perils of the sea the maxim 'causa proxima 'is applicable to the KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 61 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) case of Marine Insurance.
94. Thus, once the predominant cause is determined and it becomes clear that the causa proxima is covered under the 'insured peril', the insurer is liable to compensate and at that point the principle of Indemnity will take place. However, the insurer is not liable if the losses caused by the insured and the excepted perils cannot be separated or distinguished and also if it is caused by the negligent act of the insured .
95. Before adjudicating the main controversy between the parties, it would be relevant to weigh the quality and quantity of the evidence adduced by the parties. The primary witnesses of both the parties led their evidence and have deposed by way of an affidavit. A careful examination of their affidavit(s) would reveal that the stand taken in the pleadings has been reiterated in the said affidavit(s) as an examination- in -chief of the witnesses. As noted earlier, the witnesses have been cross examined by the Ld. Counsel of the opposite party on certain aspects including the facts which are not in dispute. Thus, I would be referring to that part of their cross examination which is relevant and is touching the controversy between the parties and not otherwise.
KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 62 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023)
96. This takes me to the real issue between the parties. The consignments of the plaintiff company were insured vide separate cover notes and insurance policies. When the losses were reported to the defendant company, surveyors were appointed who had already given their reports. The details of the cover notes, insurance policies and the reports of the Surveyors(only those reports where final opinion is there) are as under:
Sl. Nature of document Exhibit
No
First Consignment
i. Insurance Policy ExPW1/8 (colly)
272200/21/2015/393
ii. SGS Surveyor report dated ExPW1/14 (colly) 17.09.2014 iii. Repudiation letter dated ExPW1/18 18.11.2014 received by the plaintiff from the defendant Second consignment i. Insurance Policy ExPW1/23(colly) 272200/21/2015/1096 ii. SGS Surveyor report dated ExPW1/30 (colly) 11.03.2015 iii. Repudiation letter dated ExPW1/36 18.11.2014 received by the plaintiff from the defendant Third consignment i. Insurance Cover Note 324471 & ExPW1/41 (colly) Insurance Policy 272200/21/2014/609 & 592 ii. Survey Report dated 17.10.2013 ExPW1/45 (colly) and 04.11.2013 KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 63 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) iii. Repudiation Letter dated ExPW1/52.
18.11.2014 received by the plaintiff from the defendant
97. One of the terms and conditions as mentioned in the insurance cover note ExPW1/41 (colly) is "the insured named above having this day proposed to affect the above insurance and having paid the premium stated above the risk is hereby insured, subject to the usual terms and conditions of the Company's Standard Policy'.
98. In the Insurance Policies ExPW1/8 (colly), ExPW1/23 (colly) and ExPW1/41(colly), under the heading 'Term of Insurance' it is stated as under:
" The risks under this policy are covered as per the following clauses, current on date of sailing or despatch and / or other conditions/warranties otherwise stated herein and attached hereto:-
Institute Classification Clause Institute Cargo Clauses (A) Institute Tpnd clause Institute War Clause (Cargo) Institute Strike Clauses (Cargo)"
99. In the evidence filed by way of affidavit by the PW1 Ashok Kumar Maharshi, the said reports of the surveyors were given exhibit marks as ExPW1/14 (colly), ExPW1/30 (colly) and ExPW1/45 (colly).
100. During the arguments, by referring to the said reports, Ld. Counsel for the defendant company tried to make out a case that the losses in question are not KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 64 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) covered by the insurance policies. These reports have been filed by the plaintiff company but have not been disputed by the defendant company also. Meaning thereby, there is no dispute about these reports, and both the parties are placing reliance on these reports, so the same are being considered.
101. The remarks of the Surveyors, as per surveyor report Ex PW1/14 (colly) in respect of first consignment are as under:-
opinion of SGS India Pvt. Ltd vide ExPW1/14 (colly) " The cause of shortage in our opinion could be reasonably attributed to a combination of the following:-
1. There was a difference of 0.211 M/tons short, when the calculated quantity on board on completion of Loading at Load Port Durban was compared with the Bill of Lading quantity.
2. There was difference of 0.056 M/tons short when the calculated quantity on board on arrival at discharge as compared with the Bill of Lading quantity.
3. Multiple handling/operational loss."
102. As per the surveyor report ExPW1/30 (colly) of SGS India Ltd in respect of the second consignment the cause of shortage was:-
"...... Adherence of the product to the metal surfaces of the lines and Multiple handling/operational loss."
103. The remarks of the surveyor namely J.B Boda Surveyors Pvt. Ltd in respect of the third consignment as per its survey report ExPW1/45 (colly) is as under:-
" As per shore tank out turn quantity worked out to 757.586 M/Tons, this quantity when KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 65 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) compared with the Bill of lading Quantity 763.00 M/Tons shows a shortage of (-) 5.414 M/Tons, (0.710 %), which could be attributed to unloading loss."
104. The opinion of the second surveyor namely S.K Chakraborty & Associates in respect of the third consignment, as per its survey report ExPW1/45 (colly) is as under:-
"...In our opinion, the shortage of Liquid Babutol from the above vessel has been occurred due to multiple operation/handling of the cargo as well as vessel behavior which is mostly happened for this type of cargo."
105. The main cause of dispute between the parties is the exclusion clause 4.2 of the Institute Cargo Clause (A) ExDW2/A, which reads as under:-
" EXCLUSIONS
4. In no case shall this insurance cover 4.1.......
4.2 Ordinary leakage, ordinary loss in weight or volume, or ordinary wear and tear of the subject matter insured."
106. Here it would be relevant to refer to the cross examination of the witnesses examined by the parties. During the cross examination, PW1 Ashok Kumar Maharshi replied (Q.4 & Q.12) that the nature of loss in the present insurance claim is Transit Operational Loss. Regarding the nature of goods imported by the plaintiff company, PW1 replied that it was in the nature of liquid form (Q.5). He further replied that the KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 66 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) chemical products went under the process of loading and unloading two times till final measurement of volume of chemical (Q.8).
107. Coming to the cross examination of DW1 Renuka Chaudhary, I may mention that even during her cross examination plaintiff company failed to elicit anything contrary to the stand of the defendant company. DW1 also has deposed about certain facts which are not in dispute like insurance policy taken by the plaintiff company was 'All Risk Policy'; Insurance Policy is not a named peril policy; surveyors have not recommended repudiation of the claim of the plaintiff company or they did not point out any violation on the part of the plaintiff company; the definition of ordinary loss or ordinary leakage has not been provided in the policy and the term insured peril has not been defined in the insurance policy etc.
108. DW1 Renuka Chaudhary during her cross examination on being asked replied that shortage has occurred during the transfer and nature of the product. She further replied that in the repudiation communications, the reason for shortage are deviation of reference height or discrepancies in recording the quantity and /or adherence loss or evaporation loss. She categorically stated that the defendant company KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 67 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) was sure about the exact cause of loss and that is why the claim was repudiated as per the surveyor report.
109. In addition to DW1 Reunka Chaudhary, defendant company has examined S.K Chakraborty, Surveyor as DW2 who has also filed his evidence by way of affidavit ExDW2/A. During the cross examination of DW2, the nature of questions put to him was regarding preparation of the affidavit, qualification of the witness, the obligation of the surveyor to submit the report within 30 days, the documents provided to him for carrying out the survey by the defendant company and the fact that DW2 had never visited the court physically etc.
110. If the aforesaid testimonies of these witnesses are scanned, there would be no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion that whatever losses were suffered by the plaintiff company, they were Transit Operational Losses, even as per PW1 Ashok Kumar Maharshi. PW1 nowhere has stated that the losses occurred due to marine peril. Thus, whatever the losses were suffered by the plaintiff company, they were operational losses during the transit and no marine peril has taken place for which the defendant company can be held responsible.
KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 68 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023)
111. Additionally, the insurance cover notes as noted herein above clearly indicates that the risk has been insured subject to usual terms and conditions of the company's standard policy. The terms and conditions have been duly reflected in the insurance policies under consideration. Under the heading 'Term of Insurance', it has been categorically mentioned that the risks have been covered as per certain clauses including Institute Cargo Clauses (A) ExDW2/A. The said clause clearly says that Insurance Cover shall not cover the ordinary leakage, ordinary loss in weight or volume, or ordinary wear and tear of the subject matter insured.
112. Further, even if it was 'All Risk Policy', there is nothing on record suggesting that said clause is not applicable. The term " All Risk Policy", no doubt, is very wide but it has its own limitations. It does not mean that all types of losses and damages are covered under such type of policy. I am of the opinion that it would not cover things that are inevitable or almost certain to happen. Even under 'All Risk Policy', it was the duty of the insured (plaintiff) to prove that the losses suffered by it were fortuitous. In marine insurance 'fortuitous acts' referred to unexpected and accidental events that cause loss or damage to the KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 69 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) insured. The examples of 'fortuitous acts' are storms or rough seas, collision of ships, stranding or sinking, fire or explosion, lightning, earthquake, piracy etc., which is missing in the present case. Nothing has been brought on record by the plaintiff company to show that the losses to the plaintiff were caused due to any of the fortuitous acts. Mere wear and tear in handling the product would not come within the ambit of 'fortuitous acts'. The plaintiff company was under
obligation to connect the losses with any of the marine peril which the plaintiff company has miserably failed to do so.
113. It is pertinent to mention that certain types of products, particularly the chemicals in liquid form, which are there in the present case, would have a natural tendency to leakage or loss in weight or volume during the course of a voyage. Such ordinary leakage or loss is expected to happen and the same cannot be treated as fortuitous. The losses caused to the plaintiff company in the present case even as per the reports of the surveyors were basically operational losses or adherence losses. Meaning thereby, the losses in the quantity of consignments were caused by the natural characteristics of the chemical being transported without any external KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 70 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) influence.
114. Having reached the said conclusion, the plaintiff company cannot be allowed to say that the Institute Cargo Clause (A) ExDW2/A document was never supplied to them at the time when the policies were issued by the defendant company. In the cover notes it is specifically mentioned that the insured i.e plaintiff company has agreed to take insurance policy subject to the usual terms and conditions of the company's standard policy. It is categorically mentioned at page no.2 under the Terms of Insurance that the Risk under the policy are covered as per the clauses mentioned therein including Institute Cargo Clause A ExDW2/A. Meaning thereby, the plaintiff company is bound by all terms and clauses including the Institute Cargo Clauses A ExDW2/A. That clause clearly excludes the liability of the defendant company under clause 4.2 which says that in no case shall this insurance cover ordinary leakage, ordinary loss in weight or volume, or ordinary wear and tear of the subject-matter insured.
115. It is true that as per the cover notes and the insurance policies, the consignments were insured from anywhere in India via any Indian Port (by sea) but at the same time the insurance policy clearly states that it agrees to insure the loss/damages or liability or KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 71 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) expenses subject to the clauses, endorsed, conditions, warranties contained in the schedule and attached thereto. As per the schedule, the risk cover was " from anywhere in the world (load port) to anywhere in India via Indian Port, India." Therefore, the losses as suffered by the plaintiff company were not covered under the insurance policies and excluded by the clause of Institute Cargo Clause (A)ExDW2/A.
116. During the argument, one of the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff company was that the defendant company cannot be allowed to travel beyond the grounds as mentioned in the letter of repudiation. According to the plaintiff company, if the defendant company has not taken the plea of Institute Cargo Clause (A) ExDW2/A in the repudiation, in that eventuality it cannot do so later on for rejecting the claims of the plaintiff company. In this regard, reliance was placed on the judgment passed in the case of Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. (Supra).
117. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the claims of the plaintiff company were repudiated vide communication dated 18.11.2014 ExPW1/18, ExPW1/36 and ExPW1/52. All the aforesaid communications are identical, which read as under:-
KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 72 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) " ...The file has been reconsidered & discussed in details by the competent authority & it has been observed that there was no evidence of any Insured Marine Peril activated when the cargo was pumped from shore tank to ship tank at the port of loading & ship's tank into the shore tank at the port of discharge viz. breaking of lines, overflowing of tanks, abnormal leakages etc during the voyage. In that case, the quantity brought by the vessel was fully pumped and received in shore tank & it is confirmed that the shortage was not due to any Insured Peril, hence there is no liability under the Policy. In view of above, we have repudiated this claim. As such we have no liability under the policy, which you please note. We sincerely regret the inconvenience caused to you and assure you that all care has been taken to arrive at the above conclusion, keeping the best interest of clients and the company in mind."
118. The aforesaid repudiation communications ExPW1/18, ExPW1/36 and ExPW1/52 are making it clear that the claims of the plaintiff company were scrutinized vis-a-vis terms and conditions of the policies issued in addition to the reports of the surveyors and in the said communications, it was categorically stated that the shortage was not due to marine peril hence, there is no liability under the policy. This is the stand of the defendant company from the very beginning. The Institute Cargo Clause (A) ExDW2/A has been pressed into service by the defendant company to show that the losses suffered by KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 73 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) the plaintiff company were not caused by any marine peril and ordinary leakage or loss in weight or volume are excluded from the Insurance Cover. It is true that the repudiation communications are silent in referring to the Institute Cargo Clause (A) ExDW2/A explicitly but in pith and substances the claims were repudiated by the defendant company on the grounds that the losses were not caused due to any marine peril and ordinary or operational losses are not covered under the insurance policies. Therefore, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff company would not help him much and no benefit of the said judgment can be extended to the plaintiff company.
119. I have also gone through the judicial authorities as relied upon by the Ld. Counsels of both the parties. There is no doubt about the proposition of law as laid down in those judgments with regard to certain issues i.e interpretation of section 14 of Limitation Act; the burden to prove exclusion clause lies on the insurer; appreciation of surveyors reports; in case of doubt of admissibility of claim, it has to be interpreted in favour of the insured; the scope of 'All Risk Policy' and exclusion clause as contained in Institute Cargo Clause (A)ExDW2/A; the value of second surveyor report etc. and these principles as laid down, have duly KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 74 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) been considered. However, the same would not extend any benefit to the plaintiff company as the defendant company has been able to prove its case and has discharged the burden placed on it.
120. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the defendant company has been able to establish that the losses suffered by the plaintiff company were merely operational losses and were not caused due to any marine peril during the voyage of the consignments and it might have occurred due to the handling of the material for which the defendant company cannot be held liable. Thus, this Court does not find any fault in repudiating the claims of the plaintiff company by the defendant company and consequently the plaintiff company is not entitled to recover the amount, as prayed for. Hence, issue no. 5 is answered accordingly.
Issue no. 6 In case if issue no. 5 is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest, as asked for in the plaint? (OPP).
121. In view of my findings on issue no. 5, the question of awarding any interest does not arise. This issue is also disposed off accordingly.
KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 75 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023) Issue No.7. Relief
122. In view of my findings on the issues, no. 5, the present suit of the plaintiff company is hereby dismissed.
123. There is no order as to costs.
124. File be consigned to record room, as per rules.
Digitally signedRAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2025.07.30 17:00:37 +0530 (Rajesh Kumar Goel) District Judge (Commercial)-02 Central, Tis Hazari Courts 30.07.2025 Announced in the Open Court today i.e:30.07.2025 KLJ Plasticizers Ltd Date of Judgment 30.07.2025 (Page 76 of 76 ) Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (788/2023)