Delhi District Court
Ram Milan vs Universal Sompo General Insurance ... on 6 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MAYANK MITTAL
SCJ-CUM-RC, NORTH -WEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. 1063/2024
CNR No. DLNW03-001625-2024
In the matter of :
Sh. Ram Milan
S/o Sh. Dileshwar
R/o H. No. 78, Block F-6, Sultanpuri,
North-West, Delhi-110086
......Plaintiff
Versus
Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.
(Through its General Manager/Manager)
Office at :
Unit No. 903 and 904, 9th Floor, GDITL Tower,
Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura,
New Delhi-110034
....Defendant
Date of institution : 07.08.2024
Reserved for Judgment : 02.05.2026
Date of decision : 06.05.2026
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
JUDGMENT (EX-PARTE)
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.2,47,277/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Seven Only) along with pendentelite and future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of damages suffered till realization alongwith cost and expenses of the suit.
CS SCJ No. 1063/2024 Ram Milan v. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. 1 of 11 Plaintiff's case
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint are that plaintiff is the registered owner of a car/Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire VDI, bearing registration no. DL-4C-AS- 8703, which is/was insured with the defendant vide policy number 2311/69450832/00/000 (Package Policy) for the period from 11.02.2023 to 10.02.2024 for all sorts of liabilities. The plaintiff works in private service and purchased the car for his personal use.
2.1. On 01.08.2023 at about 05:00 PM, plaintiff had gone to his dentist for the removal of his teeth and further treatment, and when he came back to his house, at about 08:00 p.m., he parked his vehicle outside the gali of his house i.e. near Park View Apartment, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. When he again came back to take his vehicle on 02.08.2023 at about 05:00 p.m. for second visit to his dentist, his car was missing from the place of its parking. He immediately went to Police Station for lodging the report regarding the theft of his car. The officer concerned was gone to attend meeting for G-20 Seminar meeting of the police. The plaintiff kept waiting for the officer at the police station for a few hours. The police officer came back late at about 10:30-11:00 p.m. and lodged the FIR. The FIR bearing no. 023597/2023 was lodged at E-Police Station, Paschim Vihar West, Delhi. Thereafter, on the following day i.e. on 03.08.2023, he informed the Insurance Company regarding his theft of vehicle on the Company's customer care number. The customer CS SCJ No. 1063/2024 Ram Milan v. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. 2 of 11 care attendant informed the plaintiff that they have received his report and appropriate surveyor/investigator will soon contact the plaintiff.
2.2. On 04.08.2023, a surveyor/ investigator, namely, Mr. Monu Kumar Alias Bhanu Pratap of AA Insurance Services as appointed by the defendant Insurance Company, contacted the plaintiff and visited the site of the incident along with him. The said surveyor told the plaintiff that he will proceed with the claim and will contact the plaintiff again after filling the claim form and for collection of relevant documents. The surveyor contacted the plaintiff after two days on 07.08.2023 and informed him that the defendant Insurance Company has lodged his claim vide claim no. CL23174559 and he will visit him to complete the formalities and necessary documentation regarding the claim process. On 10.08.2023, the said surveyor again visited the plaintiff to collect all the documents and keys of the subject vehicle from the insured plaintiff and completed all other formalities which are required for the assessment of the loss of the plaintiff. Surveyor further asked the plaintiff to report the theft to the concerned Regional Transport Authority as well as to the Delhi Police Crime Branch to block the transfer of the vehicle. The surveyor assured the plaintiff that he will submit his report within few days with the defendant company and plaintiff will receive his claim amount after due process and further investigation by the Insurance Company. It was informed by him to the plaintiff that it will take atleast two-three months to complete all the investigations and formalities on their part for CS SCJ No. 1063/2024 Ram Milan v. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. 3 of 11 making payment towards the loss. After about two months, the plaintiff called the surveyor regarding the status of his claim. The surveyor informed him that the Court Order for untraced vehicle has not been received yet by the defendant/insurance company. Plaintiff was further informed that his claim is still under process for want of untrace report/order of the Court and it will take some time. Thereafter, plaintiff approached IO concerned and obtained a duly verified copy of the Court order dated 16.11.2023 of untraced report from him. Plaintiff was waiting for the claimed amount in his account as per the procedure of the defendant insurance company for a considerable period of time. However, plaintiff did not receive any intimation from defendant insurance company regarding his claim nor he received his claim amount as per procedure/contract of the insurance company. The plaintiff inquired about his claim from the surveyor on various occasions and he was told that he has submitted his final report and is pending with the defendant insurance company and will take a few months' time to process. After that the surveyor stopped picking up the calls of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was left with no option but to wait for his claim to be approved. It is stated that on 25.07.2024 he received a letter dated 30.10.2023 whereby it revealed that his claim was already repudiated long back even prior to the Court order of vehicle "Untraced Report" dated 16.11.2023. However, he was never intimated regarding the repudiation of his claim by the defendant insurance company or the surveyor. It is stated that plaintiff has not breached any terms and conditions of the insurance. Refusal of the settlement of his claim is illegal and baseless on the grounds that the notice of the CS SCJ No. 1063/2024 Ram Milan v. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. 4 of 11 theft was not given on time or the vehicle was being plied on hire or reward basis at the time of theft as is alleged in the repudiation letter dated 30.10.2023. It is further submitted that defendant has never informed the plaintiff in letter on what basis the defendant observed and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was using his car for hire or reward basis. It is averred that the value of the car as per insured declared value was Rs. 2,36,277/-. Further Rs. 11,000/- is paid to the counsel as legal fees for filing present suit for the recovery of value of car as damages suffered by the plaintiff as per contract of insurance. Hence, total amount recoverable from the defendant is Rs. 2,47,277/-. Hence, the present suit.
Defendant's case
3. Written statement has been filed on behalf of defendant contended that defendant is a general insurance company registered under the provisions of Section 3 of The Insurance Act, 1938 and the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of providing general insurance cover to its customers across the country under license from IRDAI.
3.1. It is stated that during investigation a written statement was obtained from the insured by the investigator. The insured in his written statement stated that he is a driver by profession and the insured operates the insured vehicle for private bookings and earns approximately Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is further stated that this statement of the insured confirms that the insured CS SCJ No. 1063/2024 Ram Milan v. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. 5 of 11 vehicle was being used for commercial purposes since the inception of the said policy. The said policy explicitly mentions that the insured vehicle is subject to limitations with respect to the use of the insured vehicle. The policy does not cover the claim if the insured vehicle is used for hire or reward. It is averred that on 30.10.2023, the insured was informed via letter from defendant that the insured vehicle was being used for Hire or Reward as confirmed by the insured in his written statement which is a violation of policy term, hence, the claim was adjudged to be repudiated. The communication regarding the said decision was sent to plaintiff through a claim repudiation letter dated 30.10.2023. It is stated that plaintiff's argument appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the policy coverage. The terms are explicitly laid out in the policy document, and any attempt to contest the repudiation is misconceived and lacks legal merit.
3.2. It is averred that under Section 53 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an individual may be prosecuted if their vehicle is used for hire or reward without a valid permit. If a registering authority has reasonable grounds to believe that the vehicle poses a danger to public safety or is operating in violation of the Act or its rules, it may suspend the vehicle's registration. This provision serves to enforce compliance with regulatory standards and address the illegal use of vehicles for commercial purposes. It is stated that there are no latches and omissions or deficiency in rendering services on the part of defendant company, therefore, the present suit is not maintainable. It is CS SCJ No. 1063/2024 Ram Milan v. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. 6 of 11 averred that plaintiff himself is at fault for not adhering to the policy terms and conditions, therefore, he should not be allowed to enjoy the fruits of his own wrongs. It is stated that no specific assurance was given regarding the settlement of the claim within a fixed timeframe, as the claim process is subject to verification, investigation, and compliance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is submitted that plaintiff was required to provide an untraced report from the Court, which is a standard requirement for processing theft-related claims. The delay in submitting the said report was on the part of the plaintiff and the claim could not be processed until all necessary documents were received. The Company was not at fault for any delay in the claim process. It is stated that plaintiff was kept informed of the claim process. The surveyor had submitted his final report, and upon scrutiny of the documents, it was found that the plaintiff had violated the terms of the said policy, leading to the repudiation of the claim. The plaintiff was duly notified about the same, and any claim of ignorance or lack of communication is denied. Plaintiff's assertion that he received the letter only on 25.07.2024 is false and baseless. The insurance company had taken all necessary steps to communicate the decision in a timely manner. The defendant has denied all the allegations levelled in the plaint and prayed for the dismissal of the suit with cost.
4. Replication has been filed by the plaintiff to the written statement of the defendant wherein the contents of the plaint have been reiterated and the contentions of the defendant in his written statement have been denied except the admissions made.
CS SCJ No. 1063/2024 Ram Milan v. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. 7 of 11 Issues
5. After completion of pleadings, vide order dated 02.02.2026, the following issues were framed by my learned Predecessor for trial :
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of recovery of Rs.2,47,277/- alongwith pendentelite and future interest and cost, as prayed for? OPP
(ii) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD
(iii) Relief.
5.1. The perusal of record shows that on 29.04.2026, defendant failed to appear despite repeated calls since morning, therefore, was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.04.2026 and the matter was listed for ex-parte final arguments.
Plaintiff's evidence
6. Plaintiff examined as PW1 who in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A has reiterated and reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint. He has relied upon the following documents :
1. Copy of particulars of registration certificate is obtained from RTO is Ex.PW1/1 (colly);
2. Copy of insurance downloaded from internet is Ex.PW1/2;
3. Copy of driving licence is Ex.PW1/3 (OSR);
4. Copy of aadhar card is Ex.PW1/4 (OSR);
5. Dental treatment paper is Ex.PW1/5;
6. Original e-FIR is Ex.PW1/6;
7. Copy of list of documents handed over to surveyor is CS SCJ No. 1063/2024 Ram Milan v. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. 8 of 11 Ex.PW1/7;
8. Copy of report to regional transport office is Ex.PW1/8;
9. Order of Court for untraced report is Ex.PW1/9;
10. Repudiation letter and its envelop are Ex.PW1/10-11;
11. Copy of counsel fees certificate is Ex.PW1/12.
7. I have heard the plaintiff and perused the material available on record carefully.
8. Before giving findings on the evidence led by plaintiff and submissions advanced on behalf of plaintiff, it is important to note that in the present case, on 29.04.2026, defendant failed to appear despite repeated calls since morning, therefore, was proceeded ex-parte on the same date. It is further noted that the Court is mindful of the fact that in cases where the defendant is ex-parte, the Court needs to be extra cautious, as it would not have the advantage of defence pointing out the defect in the case of plaintiff and before passing the judgment, the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiff should be weighed carefully before arriving at the finding as to whether the plaintiff has made out a case for a decree. The initial burden to prove the averments of the plaintiff rests entirely upon the plaintiff who has to discharge the said burden as per law. In civil litigation, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove its case by preponderance of probabilities. In Adiveppa V. Bhimappa (2017) 9 SCC 586, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that:
"It is a settled principle of law that the initial burden is always on the plaintiff to prove his case by proper pleadings and adequate evidence (oral and documentary) in support CS SCJ No. 1063/2024 Ram Milan v. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. 9 of 11 thereof."
Thus, the burden to prove the case as per law entirely is upon the plaintiff, by way of documentary and oral evidence.
9. PW-1 has proved on oath the allegations against the defendant and the evidence produced by the plaintiff goes on unchallenged and un-rebutted. Copy of particulars of registration certificate is obtained from RTO is Ex.PW1/1 (colly); Copy of insurance downloaded from internet is Ex.PW1/2; Copy of driving licence is Ex.PW1/3 (OSR); Copy of aadhar card is Ex.PW1/4 (OSR); Dental treatment paper is Ex.PW1/5; Original e-FIR is Ex.PW1/6; Copy of list of documents handed over to surveyor is Ex.PW1/7; Copy of report to regional transport office is Ex.PW1/8; Order of Court for untraced report is Ex.PW1/9; Repudiation letter and its envelop are Ex.PW1/10- 11; Copy of counsel fees certificate is Ex.PW1/12.
Point for determination
10. The present suit is filed on 07.08.2024 and has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation as per provisions of Limitation Act. The plaintiff has filed and relied upon all required documents to affirm his claim as mentioned in his plaint. As defendant has not turned up despite repeated calls on 29.04.2026 and accordingly was proceeded ex-parte, the averments made in the plaint and the testimony of the plaintiff during PE remained unrebutted. There is no reason to disbelief the unrebutted testimony of PW1 and the documents relied upon CS SCJ No. 1063/2024 Ram Milan v. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. 10 of 11 him. These documents coupled with testimony of the plaintiff prove the case of the plaintiff.
Relief
11. In view of the reasons given above and uncontroverted evidence brought on record, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and following reliefs are granted in his favour and against the defendant :-
i. Decree for a sum of Rs.2,47,277/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Seven Only).
ii. Seeing the prevalent market conditions, pendente lite and future interest at the rate of Rs.9% per annum is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff from the date of filing of present suit till the realization of the amount.
iii. Cost of the suit.
12. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed by MAYANK MITTAL MAYANK Announced in the Open Court Date:
MITTAL 2026.05.06
17:04:29
+0530
on 06.05.2026
(Mayank Mittal)
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller,
North West District : Rohini Courts : Delhi
CS SCJ No. 1063/2024 Ram Milan v. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. 11 of 11