Delhi District Court
Bonanza Portfolio Limited vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd on 7 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEPALI SHARMA,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-03,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) No.: 833/2022
CNR No. DLND01-008652-2022
In the matter of:
Bonanza Portfolio Ltd.,
4353/4C, Madan Mohan Street,
Ansari Road, Daryaganj,
New Delhi-110002.
........ Plaintiff
Versus
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
86-88, 2nd Floor, Janpath,
New Delhi-110001.
......Defendant
Date of institution of suit : 11.10.2022
Judgment reserved on : 15.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 07.02.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present commercial suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking recovery of amount of Rs.1,98,34,334/- along with damages of Rs. 3,00,000/-.
2. Brief facts pertaining to the present case as detailed in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a financial services organization with five group companies spread all over the country having PAN India presence across 560 cities at more than 1784 locations. It is stated that the plaintiff started business with the CS (COMM): 833/22 M/s Bonanza Portfolio Limited vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page 1 of 21 defendant and took a Fire Floater Policy bearing no. 140300/11/09/13/00000447 for the period from 15.05.2009 to 14.05.2010. The said policy was issued by Borivili (West), Mumbai Branch. The total sum insured under the said policy was 28,36,00,000/- and the premium amount was Rs. 1,31,023/-. It is stated that the "Description of Risk" column of the said policy provided as under:
"Computers (including Routers, Modem,
Switches etc.), Air Conditioners, Office
Equipments, VSAT, Generator, Furniture and Fixtures (subject to reinstatement value clause as attached)"
3. It is stated that a list of 121 offices of the plaintiff spread all over India was also attached with the policy. It is stated that the plaintiff had also taken Burglary (Floater) Insurance along with the above mentioned policy. It is stated that in the Burglary Policy issued for the same location/premises, details of assets were clearly mentioned as Computers including Routers, Modem, Switches, Air Conditioners, Equipments etc. It is averred that the plaintiff had renewed both Fire and Burglary Policies from 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and the sum insured was also increased and the premium was paid regularly.
4. It is stated that during all the years the defendant was aware about the assets in office of the plaintiff as in all the Burglary (Floater) Insurance policy including Burglary Policy no. 31040146170100000008 for the year 2017-2018, details of CS (COMM): 833/22 M/s Bonanza Portfolio Limited vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page 2 of 21 assets were clearly mentioned. It is stated that "not applicable"
was mentioned in the column "stock details".
5. It is urged that on 17.10.2017, a fire broke out at the plaintiff's office situated at 2/2A, Laxmi Insurance Building, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi, which is mentioned at serial no. 3 in the location details of the policy document.
6. Pursuant thereto the defendant deputed M/s Taarani Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. for conducting a survey of plaintiff's office premises. It is stated that the plaintiff submitted his claim form and claim bill based on repair/replacement bills of various parties amounting to Rs. 1,95,34,334/- to the surveyor in reference to policy no. 31040111170300000002 from the period 15.05.2017 to 14.05.2018.
7. It is urged that the surveyor appointed by the defendant vide its report dated 10.09.2018 admitted the incident dated 17.10.2017, however, he assessed the loss on market value as Rs. 43,14,200/-. It is stated that the surveyor ignored the fact that there was a reinstatement clause in the policy issued to the plaintiff which entitled the plaintiff to claim on replacement basis and the plaintiff did not request the defendant at any time of renewal of the policy to remove the said clause.
8. It is stated that despite follow-up, the defendant vide its letter dated 12.04.2019 issued by its Janpath, New Delhi Branch repudiated the claim of plaintiff on the ground that damaged items were not "stock" and the Fire Floater Policy no. 31040111170300000002 from 15.05.2017 to 14.05.2018 was CS (COMM): 833/22 M/s Bonanza Portfolio Limited vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page 3 of 21 issued for stock and therefore the loss was not covered under the policy.
9. Aggrieved by non-consideration of the claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 24.01.2022 for recovery of Rs. 1,95,34,334/- to the defendant with interest, however, despite the notice being served, no reply was received from the defendant. The plaintiff has also claimed damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- upon the due and outstanding amount.
10. On failure of defendant to repay the outstanding amount, the plaintiff resorted to Pre-Institution Mediation and filed the present suit for recovery.
11. In the written statement filed on behalf of defendant, the allegations of plaintiff are denied. It is stated that the plaintiff had taken a Fire Floater Policy from the defendant for coverage of loss of stock for the locations as provided by the plaintiff including the premises in issue where the alleged fire broke out. It is stated that the policy in issue was taken for "stock only". It is stated that in the present case none of the articles/goods was found to be "stock". It is urged that the plaintiff had been taking policy since 2013-2014 and the policy covered "stock only". It is stated that the surveyor appointed by the defendant filed its report and categorically reported that the affected items were not Stock as the Fire Floater Policy was issued for "Stock only" and hence the insurer was not liable for any claim amount.
12. It is stated that in case the insurance company committed any error in the insurance policy, then it should have been immediately notified by the insured. It is stated that the CS (COMM): 833/22 M/s Bonanza Portfolio Limited vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page 4 of 21 plaintiff was in the business of soliciting customers seeking insurance and thus it is not possible that the discrepancy in the policy would have remained unnoticed not only in one particular year but in the subsequent years too. It is stated that in the present case there was no discrepancy in the policy as issued by the insurer company and hence no plea can be raised by the plaintiff after the date of loss.
13. It is further stated that in the previous year also the policy obtained by the plaintiff covered "Stock only". It is urged that the surveyor had opined that the policy in question was issued on floater basis and the coverage was mentioned as Stock on floater basis, whereas, as per the nature of the business of the insured no Stock was there. It is also mentioned that the insured company were share brokers and commodity brokers having various officers all over India having computers, servers, networking equipments, FFF, AC etc., which are not Stock. It is stated that the assessment made by the surveyor does not indicate any liability of the insurance company. Accordingly, the claim of the plaintiff was found beyond the scope of policy and thus, repudiated by the defendant.
14. It is also stated that there was no replacement clause in the subject policy and thus, the plaintiff was not entitled for the said claim. It is also urged that the plaintiff has not filed any document to indicate the loss for the amount as claimed in the plaint. It is further stated that the retail invoices filed on record are not for the plaintiff company having address/location where the fire broke out. It was accordingly urged that he suit is liable CS (COMM): 833/22 M/s Bonanza Portfolio Limited vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page 5 of 21 to be dismissed.
15. Replication was filed by the plaintiff to the written statement filed by the defendant therein the plaintiff denied the assertions of the defendant and reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint. It was further stated that the surveyor report clearly stated that the net liability arising out of the loss had been worked out as Rs. 43,14,200/- and the surveyor had recommended indemnification of the plaintiff, however, the defendant did not settle the said amount with the plaintiff. It is further stated that the said amount does not include the cost of items lost/damaged in the fire and the amount that was claimed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff is entitled to the entire amount. It is stated that the defendant is shirking from its liability towards the plaintiff despite having full knowledge of the terms of the policy. It is accordingly urged that the suit of the plaintiff be decreed in its favour.
16. On completion of pleadings, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, vide order dated 09.05.2023 framed the following issues :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Rs. 1,95,34,334/- from the defendant? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Rs. 3,00,000/- as damages from the defendant? OPP
3. Whether the defendant was right in ignoring the reinstatement clause in the policy, while calculating the loss suffered by the plaintiff? OPP
4. Whether the goods/articles, which came under fire loss were stocks or not? OPD
5. Relief.
17. In support of his claim, plaintiff examined Shri Shiv Kumar Goel as PW-1 and Shri Subhash Chandra Sharma as CS (COMM): 833/22 M/s Bonanza Portfolio Limited vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page 6 of 21 PW2.
18. PW1 Shri Shiv Kumar Goel in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A), reiterated the averments made in the plaint and relied upon the following relevant documents:-
1. Copy of Memorandum and Articles of Association -
Ex.PW-1/1.
2. Latest certificate of registration dated 14.12.2018 issued by SEBI - Ex. PW1/2.
3. Board Resolution dated 10.05.2022 passed by the company - Ex. PW1/3.
4. Fire Floater Policy No. 140300/11/09/13/00000447 for the period from 15.05.2009 to 14.05.2010 - Ex. PW1/4(colly).
5. Fire Floater Policy for the year 2013-14 Ex. PW1/5 (colly).
6. Fire Floater Policy for the year 2014-15 Ex. PW1/6 (colly).
7. Fire Floater Policy for the year 2015-16 Ex. PW1/7 (colly).
8. Fire Floater Policy for the year 2016-17 Ex. PW1/8 (colly).
9. Burglary (Floater) Insurance Policy for the year 2013-14 Ex. PW1/9 (colly).
10. Burglary (Floater) Insurance Policy for the year 2014-15 Ex. PW1/10 (colly).
11. Burglary (Floater) Insurance Policy for the year 2015-16 Ex. PW1/11 (colly).
12. Burglary (Floater) Insurance Policy for the year 2016-17 Ex. PW1/12 (colly).
13. Fire Floater Policy bearing no.
31040111170300000002 from 15.05.2017 to 14.05.2018 - Ex. PW1/13(colly).
14. Burglary Policy no. 31040146170100000008 for the period 15.05.2017 to 14.05.2018 - Ex. PW1/14 (colly).
15. Correspondence exchanged to emails Ex. PW1/15 (Colly).
16. Original bills Ex. PW1/16 (Colly) and Ex. PW1/17 (Colly).
17. Copy of survey report dated 07.08.2018 Ex. PW1/18.
18. Copy of addendum report dated 14.09.2018 Ex.
PW1/19.
19. Relevant correspondence Ex. PW1/20.
20. Repudiation letter dated 12.04.2019 Ex. PW1/21.
CS (COMM): 833/22 M/s Bonanza Portfolio Limited vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page 7 of 2121. Copy of letter dated 05.08.2019 Ex. PW1/22.
22. Copy of letter dated 26.10.2020 of the defendant Ex.
PW1/23.
23. Legal notice 24.01.2022 Ex. PW1/24 and its speed post receipt Ex. PW1/25.
24. Affidavit u/s 65 of Indian Evidence Act dated 02.11.2022 Ex. PW1/26.
19. It may be noted that though majority of the documents exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff are copies, however, the defendant in the affidavit of admission & denial has admitted the Insurance Policies, Survey Report dated 07.08.2018, Repudiation Letter etc. The plaintiff in the affidavit of admission & denial has admitted the documents filed by the defendant.
20. PW2 Shri Subhash Chandra Sharma in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW2/A), reiterated the averments made in the affidavit and relied upon the following relevant documents:-
1. Board Resolution dated 20.04.2022 - Ex.PW-2/1.
2. Copy of Chart prepared by the deponent Ex. PW2/2 (colly).
3. Copy of Statement of Account of plaintiff company Ex. PW2/3.
21. After examination and cross-examination of PW1 and PW2, the plaintiff closed plaintiff's evidence.
22. In order to prove the case of defendant examined Sh. Santosh Kumar Hembram, Deputy Manager of the New India Assurance Company as DW-1 and in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.DW1/A) reiterated the averments made in the affidavit and and relied upon the following relevant documents:-
i) Policy containing terms and conditions - Ex.DW- 1/1(Colly).
ii) Report of Surveyor Ex. DW1/2.CS (COMM): 833/22 M/s Bonanza Portfolio Limited vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page 8 of 21
23. Defendant also examined Sh. Rajeev Sood, Surveyor, as DW-2 and in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.DW2/1) reiterated the averments made in the affidavit and and relied upon the Survey Report - Ex. DW2/2 (Colly) [already exhibited as Ex.DW-1/2(Colly)].
24. After cross-examination of DW1 and DW2, the evidence on behalf of defendant was closed, vide order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the Ld. Local Commissioner. Thereafter the arguments were heard.
25. I have heard Sh. Shishir Mathur, Ms. Muskan Tyagi and Sh. Sarthak Gupta, Ld. Counsels for plaintiff and Sh. Kumar Alok, ld. Counsel for defendant. I have also perused the record.
The issue-wise findings are as under:-
26. Issue no. 1, 3 & 4 are being dealt with together being inter-related.
27. The onus to prove issue no. 1 & 3 was placed upon the plaintiff and the onus to prove issue no. 4 was placed upon the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff as also deposed by PW1 that the plaintiff took a Fire Floater Policy bearing no. 140300/11/09/13/00000447 for the period between 15.05.2009 to 14.05.2010 from the defendant insurance company Ex. PW1/4(colly). It is urged that in the said policy the description of risk was for computers (including Routers, Modem, Switches etc.), Air Conditioners, Office Equipments, VSAT, Generator, Furniture and Fixtures (subject to reinstatement value clause as CS (COMM): 833/22 M/s Bonanza Portfolio Limited vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page 9 of 21 attached). It is urged that the said policy was renewed from year to year till the year 2017-2018. The plaintiff also took Burglary (Floater) Insurance Policy for the period 2013-2014 till 2017- 2018 i.e. Ex. PW1/9 to PW1/12 and Ex. PW1/14, for the same location/premises. It is stated that the details of assets were clearly mentioned in the Burglary Policies as Computers including Routers, Modem, Switches, Air Conditioners, Equipments etc. It is stated that both the Fire Floater and Burglary Floater Policies were regularly renewed by the plaintiff till 2017-2018 and the sum insured was also increased and premium paid on time. It is stated that on 17.10.2017 a fire broke out at the plaintiff's premises and the policy bearing no. 31040111170300000002 for the period 15.05.2017 to 14.05.2018 is Ex. PW1/13.
28. It is argued by ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant was aware of the nature of work of the plaintiff at the time of taking the policy and the plaintiff had renewed the above- said Fire Floater Policy and never wrote to the defendant to change the risk cover under the policy. It is stated that the Surveyor in its report dated 07.08.2018 Ex. PW1/18 had acknowledged a net liability of only Rs. 43,14,200/-, however, in its Addendum Report dated 14.09.2018 Ex. PW1/19, the Surveyor stated that there was no liability under the policy and subsequently vide the repudiation letter dated 12.04.2019 Ex. PW1/21, the claim of the plaintiff was repudiated on the ground that the Fire Floater Policy was issued for stock and the affected items were not stock.
CS (COMM): 833/22 M/s Bonanza Portfolio Limited vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page 10 of 2129. It is further urged that in the year 2016 the format of the Fire Floater Policy was changed by the defendant and in the Column of Risk Description the words "As per location details"
were mentioned. It is stated that the said changes were never intimated to the plaintiff. It is argued that after taking the policy in 2009, there was no change in the business of the plaintiff and the policy was renewed and premium was continuously paid. It is stated that the plaintiff had never asked for any change in the description of risk assured. Moreover, the Burglary Policy was also issued for the same location and in case of any misunderstanding regarding coverage of the Fire Floater Policy, the same could have been cleared by referring to the Burglary Policy of the same location, wherein the details of the assets are specifically mentioned. It is argued that the defendant has repudiated the claim of the plaintiff without any basis. Moreover, change in the format of the policy would not amount to change in the nature and scope of the policy. It is further stated that the Surveyor report filed by the defendant Ex. DW1/2 is an incomplete document and has not been proved by the defendants. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has also placed reliance upon the following judgments :
i) General Assurance Society Ltd. vs. Chandumull Jain and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 886 of 1963, AIR 1966 SC 1644;
ii)Biman Krishna Bose vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2001 (45) ALR 5;
iii) Gurshinder Singh vs. Shriram General CS (COMM): 833/22 M/s Bonanza Portfolio Limited vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page 11 of 21 Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors, AIR 2020 SC 1395;
iv) M/s Oswal Plastic Industries vs. Manager, Legal Deptt. N.A.I.C.O. Ltd., passed in Civil Appeal No. 83 of 2023 (SLP(C) No. 9049 of 2021 dated 13.01.2023;
v) Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia vs. Dhiraj Prasad Sahu and Ors., (2021) 6 SCC 523;
vi) Vishnu Bhagwan Agarwal and Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 12 SCC 210;
vii) M/s Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. TATA AIR General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., SLP(Civil) No. 25457 of 2019 dated 09.11.2022;
viii) M/s Mehta Jewellers vs National Insurance Company Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 6178 of 2023, dated 26.09.2023;
ix) Jacob Punnen & Anr. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 6778 of 2013, dated 09.12.2021 and
x) Twenty First Century Media Private Limited vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., MANU/SC/0813/2019.
30. On the other hand, it is contended by the defendant as also deposed by DW1 that the relevant policy covered "stock only" and hence the claim of the plaintiff was repudiated as none of the articles / goods were found to be "stock" as the claim of the plaintiff was beyond the scope of the policy.
CS (COMM): 833/22 M/s Bonanza Portfolio Limited vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page 12 of 2131. Perusal of the record reveals that the defendant issued Fire Floater Policy in the name of the plaintiff vide Ex. PW1/4 (colly). The policy period indicated therein is 15.05.2009 to 14.05.2010. The location details were in accordance with the attached list and the subject premises were mentioned at Serial No. 77 of the attached list. The risk description mentioned "Office Premises" and the description of risk included computers (including Routers, Modem, Switches etc.), Air Conditioners, Office Equipments, VSAT, Generator, Furniture and Fixtures (subject to reinstatement value clause as attached). The sum insured in the policy was approximately Rs. 28,36,00,000/- and the total premium was Rs. 1,44,518/-.
32. The plaintiff has claimed in para 5 of the plaint that the initial policy taken in the year 2009-2010 was renewed year after year till 2017-2018 when the fire broke out on 17.10.2017. The plaintiff has placed on record the policy taken by the plaintiff in the year 2009-2010 Ex. PW1/4 and thereafter the policy taken for the year 2013-2014 Ex. PW1/5, for the year 2014-2015 Ex. PW1/6, for the year 2015-2016 Ex. PW1/7, for the year 2016- 2017 Ex. PW1/8 and for the year 2017-2018 Ex. PW1/13. There is no document on record to indicate that the policy taken for the year 2009-2010 was also renewed for the year 2010-2011, 2011- 2012 and 2012-2013. It may however be noted that the defendant in its Written Statement in reply to para 5 of the plaint has stated that the contents of the said paragraph are a matter of record. Moreover, in his cross-examination DW1 has affirmed the suggestion of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had been renewing the CS (COMM): 833/22 M/s Bonanza Portfolio Limited vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page 13 of 21 above-said policies since 2009. He also affirmed the suggestion that the coverage given to the plaintiff in the year 2009 continued till the date of loss. However, it may be noted that the defendant in its Written Statement has specifically stated that the plaintiff had been taking the policy since the year 2013-2014, which fact also find mentions in the affidavit of evidence of DW1 i.e. Ex. DW1/A. No suggestion has been given to DW1 that the said averment was incorrect. Moreover, there is no document on record filed by the plaintiff to indicate that the policy was renewed for the year 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. In fact the documents placed on record by the plaintiff corroborates the averment made by DW1 in his examination-in-chief vide Ex. DW1/A that the plaintiff had been taking the policy since the year 2013-2014. Additionally, the plaintiff has also averred that it had taken Burglary (Floater) Insurance Policy alongwith the Fire Floater Policy and it had been renewing the said Burglary (Floater) Insurance Policy from 2010-2011 till 2017-2018. It may however be noted that the plaintiff has not placed on record any Burglary (Floater) Insurance Policy before 2013-2014. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the documents pertaining to the said policies were lost by it. In these circumstances, in absence of any positive evidence to indicate that the policy issued in the year 2009 was renewed by the plaintiff for the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, the plaintiff has not been able to prove on record that the policy taken in the year 2009 stood renewed by it year after year till 2017-2018. In view of the fact that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the policy taken for the CS (COMM): 833/22 M/s Bonanza Portfolio Limited vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page 14 of 21 year 2009-2010 was renewed for subsequent years, the plaintiff cannot claim benefit for the reinstatement Clause contained in the policy of the year 2009-2010.
33. Accordingly, the policy for the year 2013-2014 was not in continuation of the policy of the year 2009-2010. In fact the policy taken in the year 2013-2014 was renewed year after year till the year 2017-2018. The said policy did not contain any reinstatement Clause and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of reinstatement as prayed.
34. Now coming to the policy for the year 2013-2014, it is averred by the defendant that the Fire Floater Policy was taken by the plaintiff in the year 2013-2014 Ex. PW1/5. It may be noted that the description of the property is mentioned therein as "occupied as offices only". In his cross-examination, DW1 deposed that the Fire Floater Policy was a single policy having a list of multiple locations with sum insured and having same nature of business. With respect to Fire Floater Policy for the year 2013-2014 Ex. PW1/5, DW1 stated that the description of property was mentioned as offices only. Upon being shown the Burglary (Floater) Insurance Policies from the year 2013-2014 till 2017-2018 Ex. PW1/9 till Ex. PW1/12, he stated that the assets covered under the Burglary (Floater) Insurance Policies were computers including Routers, Modem, switches, ACs, equipment etc. He further stated that in the said Burglary (Floater) Insurance Policies, in the Column "stock details" it is mentioned as "NA".
35. It is contended by ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the CS (COMM): 833/22 M/s Bonanza Portfolio Limited vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page 15 of 21 plaintiff was a Financial Services and a Broking House and hence was not dealing in "stocks" as indicated in the Fire Floater Policies. It is urged that the plaintiff was running an office from the subject premises and therefore it had insured the office equipments including computers, modem, ACs etc. in its Fire Floater Polices. It is stated that the claim of the plaintiff has been wrongfully repudiated by the defendant in as much as in case of any doubt, the defendant could have referred to the Burglary (Floater) Insurance Policy taken by the plaintiff, which specifically mentioned the description of goods present at the premises of the plaintiff.
36. In this regard, DW1 in his cross-examination stated that the plaintiff deals in share market/brokers. Upon a question being put to him as to what he meant by "stock", DW1 stated that whatever the insured declares with the Insurance Company would amount to stock. He affirmed that the word "stock" was not defined in the Fire Floater Policy. He further affirmed that "stock" is dependent upon the nature of business of the insured. Pertinently, he stated that whenever Fire Floater Policy and Burglary Policy are issued, same articles are covered in both the policies. He also affirmed that the plaintiff had not changed the nature of its business since 2009 till the date of loss and further that the coverage given to the plaintiff company continued till the date of loss. He denied that the word "stock" mentioned in the policy was an inadvertent mistake.
37. Perusal of the Fire Floater Policy for the year 2013- 2014 to the year 2017-2018 i.e. Ex. PW1/5 to Ex. PW1/8 and Ex.
CS (COMM): 833/22 M/s Bonanza Portfolio Limited vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page 16 of 21PW1/13 respectively, reveals that the description of the property is mentioned "as per location details", description of stocks is indicated as "on stocks". The Burglary Policies issued for the same period indicated the details of the assets covered under the policies under the head "furniture/fixture/fittings details"
included "Computers (including Routers, Modem, Switches etc.), ACs, Equipments". It is relevant to note that under the head "stock details" it is mentioned as "NA".
38. Hence, as per the Burglary Policies the assets covered under the policies included Computers, Routers etc. and the stock details were nil. On the other hand, the Fire Floater Policy had insured the "Stock".
39. In this regard, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Mehta Jewellers vs. National Insurance Company, Civil Appeal No. 6178/2023, order dated 26.09.2023 observed as under :
"3. We may note that the policy itself does not define the word "locked safe" nor does it define what should be the standard make of the "locked safe". The expression used in the policy are "locked safe of standard make". In the absence of any "standard make" described by the respondent - Insurance Company in the policy, and in the absence of any description of a "locked safe" by the respondent - Insurance Company, we are of the opinion that the appellant could not have been fastened with the liability of placing the jewellery in a particular safe, which can be treated as a "locked safe" for meeting the requirements of the respondent-Insurance Company. The definition of the term "locked safe", itself being as ambiguous as it is, the claim of the appellant could not have been repudiated on that count."
(emphasis supplied) CS (COMM): 833/22 M/s Bonanza Portfolio Limited vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page 17 of 21
40. In the present case also the definition of the term "stock" has not been provided. DW1 during his cross- examination stated that whatever the insured declares with the Insurance Company would amount to "stock". He affirmed that the word "stock" was not defined in the Fire Floater Policy. He further affirmed that "stock" is dependent upon the nature of business of the insured. Admittedly, the plaintiff was running an office from the subject premises. Moreover, it is deposed by DW1 that whenever Fire Floater Policy and Burglary Policy are issued, same articles are covered in both the policies. Accordingly, since the term "stock" is not defined and as DW1 stated that the same would be dependent upon the nature of business of the insured, which in the present case was running an office and dealing in share market / brokers, therefore, in order to determine the assets covered under the Fire Floater Policy, the Burglary Policy could be referred to wherein the details of assets covered under the policy are indicated to be Computers including Routers, Modem, Switches, Air Conditioners, Equipments. Moreover, the nature of business of the plaintiff being a stock broker company, therefore, the assets covered under the policy would include Computers including Routers, Modem, Switches, Air Conditioners, Equipments etc.
41. It may be noted that as per the Surveyor's Report Ex. DW1/2, the loss on the basis of depreciated value has been assessed at Rs. 43,14,200/- and the Surveyor had recommended indemnification of the assessed loss. Subsequently, vide letter dated 14.09.2018 Ex. PW1/19 the Surveyor stated that since the CS (COMM): 833/22 M/s Bonanza Portfolio Limited vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page 18 of 21 affected items were not "stock" and since the Fire Floater Policy had been issued for "stock", therefore, the assessment of loss made by them was for the purpose of record only without any liability of the insurer. Pursuant thereto a repudiation letter dated 12.04.2019 Ex. PW1/21 was issued by the defendant repudiating the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that the claim was beyond the scope of policy. However, in view of the aforesaid discussion, assets covered would include the items covered under the Burglary Policy for running the office of the plaintiff and hence, the claim of the plaintiff cannot be repudiated on that account. In these circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to the loss on the basis of depreciated value which has been assessed at Rs. 43,14,200/- in the Surveyor's Report Ex. DW1/2. As discussed, the policy taken in the year 2013-2014 and continued till 2017-2018 does not contain reinstatement clause, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of reinstatement, however, the plaintiff is entitled to the loss on the basis of depreciated value as has been assessed by the Surveyor. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs. 43,14,200/- as assessed by the Surveyor in its report Ex. DW1/2.
42. Issue nos. 1, 3 & 4 answered accordingly.
Issue no. 2
43. As regards the claim of damages, no evidence has been led by the plaintiff to prove the basis of the damages claimed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff has simply stated that the defendant is liable to make payment of damages on due and outstanding CS (COMM): 833/22 M/s Bonanza Portfolio Limited vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page 19 of 21 amount to the tune of Rs. 3 Lakhs, without substantiating the same. In these circumstances, issue no. 2 is decided against the plaintiff.
Relief
44. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the plaintiff is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 43,14,200/- from the defendant. It may further be noted that the plaintiff has not specifically prayed for pendente lite and future interest in the prayer Clause of the plaint. In this regard, Section 34 of the CPC would be relevant which grants discretion to the court to award pendente lite and future interest. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the judgment of Satish Solvant Extractions Private vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., dated 09.01.1996, AIR 1996 BOM 293, held that the exercise of this power is not dependent upon a specific claim being made by the plaintiff for such interest. The Court has the power to grant interest pendente lite whether claimed in the suit or not, if it is satisfied on the facts of the case that such interest should be granted. The Hon'ble High Court further observed that ordinarily pendente lite interest should be granted under Section 34 of CPC unless there are cogent reasons for depriving the plaintiff of the interest during trial and held that grant of interest should be the rule and refusal an exception. The discretion of the court is not only in the matter of grant of interest but also as to the rate of interest.
45. In light of the aforesaid and having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no reason why the CS (COMM): 833/22 M/s Bonanza Portfolio Limited vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page 20 of 21 plaintiff should be deprived of the interest of the amount due to him from the defendant in as much as, the plaintiff despite having insurance policies both for fire and burglary, had to approach the court for his claim under the relevant policy.
46. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff had taken the insurance policies from the defendant and considering that the insurance contract is a contract of utmost good faith and despite having insurance policies, the plaintiff was deprived of the benefit of the subject policy, therefore, it would be just and reasonable that interest be awarded to the plaintiff on the principal amount. Hence, simple interest @ 6% per annum would be just and reasonable and would meets the ends of justice. Accordingly, the plaintiff is also entitled to simple interest @ 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 43,14,200/- from the date of suit till its realization.
47. Pre-institution mediation fees, if any, be also added to the cost.
48. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
49. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by DEEPALI DEEPALI SHARMA Pronounced in the open Court SHARMA Date: 2026.02.07 15:29:16 +0530 on this 7th February 2026 ( Deepali Sharma ) District Judge (Commercial Court)-03 Patiala House Courts, New Delhi CS (COMM): 833/22 M/s Bonanza Portfolio Limited vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page 21 of 21