Delhi District Court
Ramesh Chander Sethi vs Liberty Videocon General Insurance Co. ... on 8 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SOOD,
DISTRICT JUDGE-01 ( CENTRAL), THC, DELHI.
CS No 13782/2016
CNR No. DLCT 01-001718 2016
Sh. Ramesh Chander Sethi
Since deceased through its LRs
a) Smt Neelam Sethi Widow
b) Sanjay Sethi Son
c) Dr Sumit Sethi Son
R/o 12-C, Underhill Lane,
Civil Lines,
Delhi. ...PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
1. M/s Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company
Through its Managing Director
2. The Managing Director
M/s Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company
Both Regd. Office at 10th floor Tower: "A"
Pen insula Business Park,
Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013
Also at
10th floor, Aggarwal Cyber Plaza- I
Netaji Subhash Place,
Pitampura, North West Delhi-34 ...DEFENDANTS
Date of Institution : 30.01.2016
Date of judgment : 08.07.2025
CS No.13782/2016 Ramesh Chander Sethi vs. M/s Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company
Page no. 1/17
JUDGEMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs.
10,24,830/- along with pre-reference, pendente-lite and future interest @ 24 % per annum pleading inter-alia as under:
i. That the plaintiff is a senior citizen and an advocate having good fame and reputation and is socially well renowned.
ii. That the defendant no 1 company is involved in the business of providing insurance facility to public at large, mainly in sector of automobile and defendant no 2 is the managing director of defendant no 1.
iii. That the plaintiff purchased the insurance policy as private car package policy bearing no 2011-2000102-15-100071-00-000 for the period of 06.05.2015 to midnight of 05.05.2016 for his Toyota Innova 2.5 G4 MUV car bearing registration No DL 14 CA 1503 manufactured in the year 2015.
iv. That on 25.08.2015 two bicycle rickshaw pullers dashed the aforesaid car of the plaintiff from both sides, thus causing enormous damage to the said car as the rickshaws were fully loaded with heavy goods. The occurrence of the said event left the plaintiff with nothing but to call the police control room, and pursuant to the arrival of the police officials at the location of the said tragic event, the plaintiff narrated the entire incident. However, no FIR was registered since the said rickshaws were not having any registration number nor were they having any CS No.13782/2016 Ramesh Chander Sethi vs. M/s Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Page no. 2/17 license. The copy of the intimation to the police authorities, i.e., PS Tis Hazari, being diary number 15-PP dated 01.09.2015 is also annexed with the plaint.
v. That in connection with the said intimation, the plaintiff informed the defendant company about the same and lodged the claim on 25.08.2015 for fulfilling all the formalities and clearance of its entire claim amount for the repair of the said car.
vi. That the defendant company, proving its ill will, dishonest intentions, and vengeance against the plaintiff, appointed a surveyor who only allowed a petty sum of Rs. 7,406/- against the massive dashing that occurred to the said car and as such the plaintiff refuted the claim. The said car was purchased recently, and there could have been no chance of any deduction in the claim sought due to the damage to the said car. Having run the pillar to post, since the defendant company did not pay any heed to the genuine claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff, being harassed at length, being a senior citizen, was constrained to issue a legal notice from his counsel to the defendant company claiming his dues.
vii. That the said car was repaired at the authorized dealer of the any make "TOYOTA" vide Document reference no. BPJ15-02368 dt 05.09.2015 thereby accumulating the total of the repair to an amount of Rs 24,830/- including a minor repaint of bumper which the plaintiff got done on his own instructions since the car was going for repair therefore it was preferred to get rid of minor CS No.13782/2016 Ramesh Chander Sethi vs. M/s Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Page no. 3/17 shortcomings. Therefore, the plaintiff acting in harassment and ill wills against the plaintiff denied the entire claim of the plaintiff proving heights of malafides and frauds, having been suffered at length by the plaintiff being a senior citizen, the defendant company is liable to pay to the plaintiff the costs of the repairs along with damages for such harassment. The copy of the bill along with the payment receipt is also attached with the plaint.
viii. That the plaintiff served a legal notice dated 31.08.2015 and thereafter the defendant company gave a whimsical response via letter dated 24.09.2015 thereby disclaiming the plaintiff's claim.
2. On the basis of the above, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking following prayers:
1. Pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for a sum of Rs. 10,24,830/-.
2. Award the pre-reference, pendent-lite and future interest @ 24% p.a. till its realization of the decreetal amount:
3. Take punitive action against the defendants for causing perjury to the plaintiff herein:
4. Award costs of the present suit
5. Any other relief or order(s) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
3. The defendants filed their written statement challenging the suit of CS No.13782/2016 Ramesh Chander Sethi vs. M/s Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Page no. 4/17 the plaintiffs pleading inter-alia as under:
i. That the Plaintiff has joined several causes of action arising on different dates (not specifically disclosed by the Plaintiff) in the present plaint. That the plaintiff is asking for and/or insisting on considering scratches/dents on the front bumper and front doors allegedly caused by rickshaw pullers and/or transporters on different dates, which cannot be considered, as those damages were never previously reported to the defendants, and thus the defendants were denied an opportunity to ascertain their liability at that point. That had the scratches/dents at the front bumper and at both front doors been accidental and fallen under insurance purview, it was incumbent upon the insured to immediately notify the defendants of the same. However, the plaintiff failed to do so and thus has prejudiced the right of the defendants to ascertain the exact cause and extent of damages. The plaintiff is trying to combine all damages that allegedly arose on different dates (even not known to the plaintiff) into one claim for malicious acts.
ii. That though vehicle of Plaintiff stands insured with this defendant throughout the currency of Policy, the liability of these defendants will be in accordance with the terms and conditions incorporated and to the extent of limits mentioned in the Policy. The Policy has Condition 1 which reads as :
"Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident, loss, or CS No.13782/2016 Ramesh Chander Sethi vs. M/s Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Page no. 5/17 damage in the event of any claim, and thereafter, the Insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter of claim written summons and/or process, or a copy thereof, shall be forwarded to the Company immediately upon receipt by the Insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately; the Insured shall have knowledge of any impending Prosecution Inquest or Fatal Inquiry in respect of any occurrence, which may give rise to a claim under this Policy. In case of theft or criminal act, which may be the subject of a claim under this Policy, the Insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender"
iii. The very purpose of including this condition in the contract is to give the insurer an opportunity to inspect the loss immediately to confirm whether the loss was caused by any of the perils covered in Section I of the Policy and whether, at the time such loss occurs, the vehicle was being used in accordance with the terms and conditions forming part of the Policy. It is understood that if the loss was not caused by any of the perils mentioned in Section I of the Policy or if the insured violated any of the terms and/or conditions of the Policy, the insurer has the right to deny the claim based on a specific understanding.
iv. That each event causing damage to the vehicle is a separate event, i.e. a separate cause of action, and such a separate claim must be made for each such event immediately after the occurrence of the loss. The Policy has a "Compulsory Deductible" clause, which means that for each claim, the insured had agreed to bear loss to the extent of INR 2,000/-, CS No.13782/2016 Ramesh Chander Sethi vs. M/s Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Page no. 6/17 and the insurer's liability will be only for losses exceeding the compulsory deductible clause.
v. On merits, it is denied that on 25.08.2015, two bicycle rickshaw pullers dashed the aforesaid car of the plaintiff from both sides. It is also denied that there were enormous damage to the said car as alleged in the corresponding paragraph of the plaint. It is wrong and denied that the rickshaws were fully loaded with heavy goods. It is wrong and denied that the plaintiff called the police control room. It is wrong and denied that DD No. 15-PP dated 01.09.2015 was registered by the police. It is wrong and denied that the FIR could not be registered since the alleged rickshaws did not have any registration number nor were they having any license vi. It is submitted that the plaintiff, during the intimation of claim to defendant No. 1, reported in an undated letter that his car, while parked, was allegedly damaged by a rickshaw puller from the rear side, thus causing damage to the right- side rear bumper and right-side rear door. The plaintiff never informed the defendants that on August 25, 2015, the car was also damaged from the front side. The plaintiff admitted in the aforementioned letter that there are certain scratches/dents on the front bumper and the front door because his office is located at Gokhale Market, where many transporters operate their transport business. The plaintiff admitted in the above-mentioned letter that his car was scratched not only today but on different dates.
CS No.13782/2016 Ramesh Chander Sethi vs. M/s Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Page no. 7/17 However, no copy of the NCR/FIR was provided to the defendants.
vii. It was further submitted that the plaintiff informed the defendant about the accident and lodged a claim on 26.08.2015 for the alleged accident dt 25.08.2015. viii. That in reply to the contents of paragraph 6, it is wrong and denied that the defendant was dishonest, with ill will, and vengeance processed the claim of the plaintiff. It is submitted that upon receipt of information from the plaintiff about the alleged accident, a duly licensed surveyor, Mr. Pradeep Sharma, was appointed to ascertain the exact cause and extent of the damages. The surveyor accordingly inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss for the amount of Rs 7,120/- towards repair of damages corresponding to Loss dated 25/08/2015 with the special remarks, "Insured is demanding multiple damages in one claim. The vehicle is damaged from both left side and right side as well. The right side damages approved subject to FIR copy as the vehicle got damaged in parked condition." However, insured claimed that damages were because of malicious acts and he had lodged FIR for the same. The surveyor asked the plaintiff for the copy of FIR to verify the genuineness of statement made by insured qua the cause of loss. That the defendant No. 1 sent letter dated 02/09/2015 to the insured calling upon him to submit copy of FIR at the earliest. The copy of the letter dated 02/09/2015 from defendant No. 1 to the Plaintiff is enclosed with the plaint CS No.13782/2016 Ramesh Chander Sethi vs. M/s Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Page no. 8/17 as Annexure P-6. That the survey report is enclosed as Annex D-4. That the plaintiff is asking for and/or insisting on considering scratches/dents on the front bumper and front doors allegedly caused by rickshaw pullers and/or transporters on different dates, which cannot be considered as those damages were never reported to the defendants immediately and the defendant was denied an opportunity to ascertain their liability at that point in time. That had the scratches/dents at the front bumper and at both front doors been accidental and fallen under insurance purview, it was incumbent upon insured to immediately notify the defendants thereof. However, the plaintiff failed to do so and thus has prejudiced the defendants' right to ascertain the exact cause and extent of damages. The plaintiff is attempting to combine all damages in one claim, which is not maintainable, and hence the present plaint merits dismissal for joining various causes of action in one plaint. ix. The defendants further denied that the damages were massive or that the plaintiff has been harassed and it is submitted that the plaintiff despite letters dt 02.09.2015 and 24.09.2015 failed to submit copy of the FIR which as per the plaintiff was damaged due to malicious acts. x. As per the defendants the amount of Rs 24,830/- incurred by the plaintiff towards repairs was arising out of different causes of action on different dates and since the plaintiff failed to submit the copy of the FIR hence the defendants closed the claim of the plaintiff.
CS No.13782/2016 Ramesh Chander Sethi vs. M/s Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Page no. 9/17 xi. The defendants further denied that the plaintiff suffered massive loss in the form of mental distress, tension, mental agony, harassment, inconvenience or suffered loss of goodwill amongst his friends and society.
REPLICATION
4. The plaintiffs filed their replication to the written statement of the defendants by denying each and every allegation raised by the defendants and reiterated the contents of the plaint.
ISSUES
5. Vide order dated 10.01.2018, following issues were framed for adjudication:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs 10,24,830/- as claim? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for what period ? OPP
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE
6. The plaintiff during the proceeding of the present suit expired and his LRs were impleaded in the present suit. In order to prove his case one of the LRs of the plaintiff i.e. Sh Sanjay Sethi was examined who entered into the witness box as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A bearing his signatures at Point A and B and relied upon the following documents:
S. No Exhibit Document CS No.13782/2016 Ramesh Chander Sethi vs. M/s Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Page no. 10/17
1. PW1/1 Insurance policy bearing No. 2011-2000102- (OSR) 1/1000771-00-000 for the period of 06.05.2015 to midnight of 05.05.2016.
2. PW1/2 The police complaint vide DD No. 15TPP dated (OSR) 01.09.2015.
3. PW1/3 The legal notice dated 31.08.2015.
(OSR)
4. PW1/4 & The postal receipts.
PW1/5(Colly) (OSR)
5. Mark A The copy of bill dated 05.09.2015.
6. PW1/7 The letter dated 24.09.2015 (OSR)
7. PW1/8 The ITR of the plaintiff for the assessment year (OSR) 2014-15.
7. The PW-1 was duly cross-examined on 18.08.2023 and thereafter the LR of the plaintiff closed his evidence by way of separate statement recorded on the same day i.e. on 18.08.2023.
8. The defendants, in their evidence, examined Sh Roshan Thakur (Legal Manager) as DW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. DW-1/A bearing his signatures at Point A and B. S. No Exhibit Document 1 DW 1/ 1 Insurance policy & wordings issued by the defendant 2 DW 1/ 2 Undated letter written by the plaintiff to the defendant 3 DW 1/ 3 Claim form 4 DW 1/ 4 Surveyor report DW-1 was duly cross-examined and vide separate statement of Ld counsel for the defendant, the DE was closed on the same day i.e. on CS No.13782/2016 Ramesh Chander Sethi vs. M/s Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Page no. 11/17 11.10.2023 .
ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS
9. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs as well as Ld. Counsel for the defendants at length and have gone through the record.
10. My issue-wise finding is as under:
ISSUE No. 1:
"Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs 10,24,830/- as claim? OPP"
11. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. In order to prove this issue the plaintiff has examined PW-1 who is the son of the plaintiff. In order to prove this issue the plaintiff was required to prove that due to the accident which had taken place on 25.08.2015 damages/loss to the insured car of the plaintiff was caused to the tune of Rs 24,830/- and that wrongful denial of the insurance claim has been made by the defendants thereby causing mental distress, tension, agony, harassment and inconvenience to the tune of Rs 10,00,000/-. The plaintiff has relied upon the insurance policy which is Ex PW 1/ 1 which is the private car package policy/certificate of insurance cum policy schedule. However the plaintiff has not placed on record the terms and conditions of the aforesaid package policy/certificate of insurance cum policy schedule which has been filed on record by the defendants i.e. Ex DW 1/1. The plaintiff has not denied that the wordings of the private car package policy are not applicable to the insurance policy which has been obtained by the plaintiff with respect to car bearing Registration No DL 14 CA 1503 belonging to the plaintiff and neither any question has been put to DW-1 to the effect that the wordings of the private car insurance CS No.13782/2016 Ramesh Chander Sethi vs. M/s Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Page no. 12/17 policy i.e. Ex DW 1/ 1 do not pertain to the policy as issued to the plaintiff. As per the condition no 1 of Ex DW 1/ 1, it has been prescribed that notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim, and thereafter, the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter, claim, writ, summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest, or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this Policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this Policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender. Further, as per condition no 8 of Ex DW 1/1 it has been prescribed that the due observance and fulfillment of the terms, conditions, and endorsement of this Policy, so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the Insured, and the truth of the statements and answers in the said proposal shall be conditions precedent to any liability of the Company to make any payment under this Policy.
12. The terms and conditions of Ex DW 1/1 since pertains to the insurance policy as obtained by the plaintiff are binding upon the plaintiff. Thus the plaintiff was duty bound to give notice in writing to the defendants immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim. As per the plaintiff the event of claim occurred on 25.08.2015 when two bicycle rikshaw pullers dashed the insured car CS No.13782/2016 Ramesh Chander Sethi vs. M/s Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Page no. 13/17 of the plaintiff from both the sides causing huge damage to the car and of which incident, a written complaint (Ex PW 1/2) was made to the police authorities on 01.09.2015. As per the plaintiff the surveyor appointed by the defendant company allowed a sum of Rs 7,406/- and the defendant company paid no heed to the genuine claim of the plaintiff who thereafter got the car repaired from the Authorized dealer of Toyota and incurred an amount of Rs 24,830/-.
13. The plaintiff who though has placed on record Ex PW 1/1 to Ex PW 1/8, has concealed material facts from the court who has not placed on record either the terms and conditions of the captioned insurance policy (Ex DW 1/1) nor has placed the copy of the letter issued by the Plaintiff to the defendant thereby informing the defendant company about the damage caused by the cart puller. The aforesaid letter i.e Ex DW 1/2 has been placed on record by the defendant wherein the Plaintiff has clearly stated that "a cart puller hit my car from back side and my car get damaged from right side back bumper and right side rear door apart from this my car is also having some scratches/ dents at front bumper and at both the front doors and the reason of these scratches is also the same i.e. some rikshaw cart pullers because of my office is situated at Gokhle Market and so many transporters are running their transport business over there that's why my car get scratched by them not only today but on different dates."
14. Thus from the aforesaid it is clear in the incident which happened on 25.08.2015, the insured car of the plaintiff sustained the following damages :
a) Right side back bumper
b) Right side rear door.
CS No.13782/2016 Ramesh Chander Sethi vs. M/s Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Page no. 14/17
15. The plaintiff has categorically stated that apart from the said damage which was caused on 25.08.2015 the car was having scratches/dents at front bumper and at both the front doors.
16. The plaintiff has not denied about the issuance of the letter which as per the admissions made by the plaintiff vide para 5 of the plaint was issued on 25.08.2015.
17. PW-1 in his cross examination has clearly admitted that his vehicle was not scratched from front and back side by any rikshaw puller and also that he do not remember the actual damage caused by the rikshaw pullers by colliding into his car. PW-1 further has feigned ignorance as to the date on which claim was lodged with the defendant.
18. Thus in view of the admissions having been made by the plaintiff that besides the damage caused due to the accident on 25.08.2015, the insured car was having scratches/dents at front bumper and at both the front doors which were prior to the accident which happened on 25.08.2015 and of which no information/notice was provided to the defendants, under the terms and conditions of Ex DW 1/1 (condition no
1) who were thus within their rights to deny the claims other than the claims claimed under the accident which was notified to the defendants under Ex DW 1/2 which admittedly was issued by the plaintiff on 25.08.2015. Thus, the surveyor as appointed by the defendants was justified in returning the special remarks to the effect that the insured is demanding multiple damages in one claim. The surveyor accordingly approved the damages caused to the right side of the vehicle in terms of Ex PW 1/2 and quantified the loss at Rs 7,120/- which was caused due to the incident which happened on 25.08.2015. Thus from the aforesaid it is clear that Ex PW 1/2 is clearly an afterthought wherein contrary to CS No.13782/2016 Ramesh Chander Sethi vs. M/s Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Page no. 15/17 the admissions made by the plaintiff (Ex PW 1/2) averments have been made to the effect that in the incident of 25.08.2015, the car was damaged from the left side front door and left side front bumper. Thus the defendants under condition No 1 of Ex DW 1/1 are within their rights to decline various other claims other than the damages which were suffered by the insured car on 25.08.2015 of which no notice had been provided to the defendants. Since the defendants were within their rights to decline the multiple claims other than the damages which was caused on 25.08.2015, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was harassed by the defendants or that any mental pain and agony or loss of goodwill to the tune of Rs 10,00,000/- was suffered by the plaintiff.
19. Thus the plaintiff is entitled to only an amount of Rs 7,120/- as assessed by the surveyor as appointed by the defendants in terms of the terms and conditions of Ex DW 1/1. Since Ex DW 1/1 contains an amount of Rs 2,000/- towards compulsory deductible which the insured has agreed to bear, the plaintiff is entitled to an amount of Rs 5,120/-. Hence this issue is partly decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
20. Issue No. 2"Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for what period ? OPP"
21. In terms of finding given upon issue no 1, since the surveyor as appointed by the defendants has stated that a loss of Rs 7,120/- was caused to the right side of the vehicle by the cart puller and since despite the same after deducting the compulsory deductible amount of Rs 2,000/- an amount of Rs 5,120/- has not been paid by the defendants CS No.13782/2016 Ramesh Chander Sethi vs. M/s Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Page no. 16/17 to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to the interest @ 9% w.e.f. from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.
22. RELIEF:-
In view of the discussion herein above, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed for an amount of Rs 5,120/- togetherwith interest @ 9% w.e.f. from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. Costs of the suit be also awarded.
23. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
24. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed
SACHIN by SACHIN
Pronounced in the Open Court (SACHIN SOOD)
SOOD
SOOD Date: 2025.07.08
16:13:03 +0530
on 08.07.2025. DJ-01(Central)/THC
Delhi.
CS No.13782/2016 Ramesh Chander Sethi vs. M/s Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Page no. 17/17