Delhi District Court
Cec-Cici Jv And Ors vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 4 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAVINDER BEDI
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMM.)-12, (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
In the matter of:
CS (COMM) No. 1191/20
1. CEC-CICI JV
DDA Park, Model town-II
Gujrawala Town City,
Near Azadpur Metro Station,
New Delhi-110009
2. CEC International Corporation India Pvt.Ltd.
3. Continental Engineering Corporation
Both at Flat No.211, Pocket A/3,
Sector-7, Rohini,
New Delhi-110085 ........Plaintiffs
Versus
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Oriental House,
A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi-110002 ......Defendant
Date of institution of suit : 10.09.2018
Date of final arguments : 23.05.2025
Date of Judgment : 04.06.2025
Plaintiff represented by Adv. Kapil Kher and Adv Sandeep Thukral.
Defendant represented by Adv. Amandeep Singh and Adv. Dev Bhardwaj
Digitally signed
RAVINDER by RAVINDER
BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:40:46 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 1/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
JUDGMENT
1. Present is a suit instituted by Plaintiffs seeking recovery of Rs.1,16,43,044/- alongwith interest @18% per annum pendente-lite and future against the Defendant.
2. It is necessary to take note of the material facts as mentioned in the Plaint.
Plaintiff no.1 (in short as Plaintiff) is a joint-venture between Plaintiff no.2 CEC International Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. (referred to as CICI) and Plaintiff no.3 i.e. Continental Engineering Corporation (referred to as CEC), incorporated under the relevant laws of Taiwan. Plaintiffs are engaged in the business of civil construction and building construction, real estate development and Environmental Project Development. Mr. Rajiv Kumar, is duly authorized by Plaintiff to file the present suit.
Defendant is a Company engaged in the business of insurance and is governed by the General Insurance Corporation of India, bound by the rules and regulations of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI).
Digitally signed
RAVINDER by RAVINDER
BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:40:53 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 2/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Plaintiff no.1 was awarded the works of construction of Mass Rapid Transport System (MRTS) for the Delhi Metro Phase-III, Mukund Pur, Yamuna Vihar Corridor. Vide Contract no. CC-04, Plaintiff's work was to design and construct the tunnel by shield TBM, tunnel by cut and cover, underground stations at Azadpur, ramps at Mukundpur and Shalimar Bagh for the underground works on Mukundpur-Yamuna Vihar Corridor of Delhi MRTS Projects of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), Phase-III.
Plaintiff as per Clause-15 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) with DMRC was mandated to secure an Insurance for (i) Professional Indemnity ; (ii) Works & Contractors' equipment ; Injury to persons and damage to property and (iv) its workers. As per clause 15.3 of GCC, Plaintiff was obligated to obtain a Contractors' All Risks Policy ( in short CAR Policy), inter-alia , insuring against third party liability which might arise out of performance of its obligations under the Contract.
Plaintiff applied for a CAR Policy under joint names of its employer i.e. DMRC and itself, with Defendant. The Defendant issued the CAR Policy insuring the Plaintiff and DMRC against the insured sum of Rs. 417 crore for the period commencing from 09.01.2012 upto 08.02.2016 which included maintenance period against premium of Rs.90,66,185/- along with service tax of Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:41:00 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 3/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Rs.9,33,817/-, totalling at Rs.1,00,00,002/-.
The premium chargeable under the Policy was to be paid in 11 equal installments, as per the Schedule detailed in para no.5 of the plaint. Policy expressly covered any third party liability with cross liability cover along with indemnity to the extent of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- in respect of any accident arising out of either a single event or a series of events with total indemnity limit extending to Rs.25,00,00,000/-. The CAR policy was renewed / extended from time to time by the Defendant including the extension duly effected on 09.11.2017 covering the risk for the period commencing from 09.11.2017 expiring on 08.02.2018.
Various extensions were made by way of endorsements to the CAR policy for different periods and details of which are set out in para no.7 of the plaint. The Plaintiff as per schedule of the premium had paid the premium in compliance of GCC of the Contract and as such the Plaintiff no.1 was entitled to be indemnified by the Defendant to the extent of the sum insured under CAR Policy.
Plaintiff had been diligently executing the works awarded under the Contract. However during the course of work at Azadpur, Mukundpur Segment, several complaints were lodged by residents of Model Town-III with regard to the significant damages caused Digitally signed RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:41:07 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 4/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. to their buildings due to the tunneling works carried out during the period of 27.01.2015 to 06.04.2015. Plaintiff as per clause 5 of the CAR policy reported the alleged losses complained of by residents to Defendant vide mail dated 19.02.2015 . The Defendant in response to the same, registered the claim as Claim no. 211200/44/2015/0025 and appointed M/s Select Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessor Pvt Ltd (inshort as 'Surveyor') on 09.03.2015 to carry out a Survey for assessment of losses caused to the buildings.
Plaintiff during this period assured the residents/occupants/RWAs of the said buildings of the repair works to be carried out by it. On 18.03.2015, the Surveyor inspected and carried out a Joint Survey of the buildings, which suffered damage due to tunneling activities. The Surveyor on preliminary assessment notified the Defendant on 24.03.2015 of the estimated loss of Rs. 50 lakhs likely to be occasioned due to tunneling activities. The Surveyor was informed about the Pre-construction survey carried out in March, 2015 and pre-construction building survey undertaken around March, 2015 for assessment of the building conditions. A Report of Pre-construction Building Surveys was submitted to the Surveyor by Plaintiff. Some of residents were also constrained to shift to alternative accomodation by the Plaintiff due to tunneling activities. During course of Survey, it was revealed that major Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:41:14 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 5/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. cracks had developed to the walls resulting in damage caused to the underneath residential building no. G-3/3, Model Town-III, Delhi.
The Surveyor made joint visits on on 17.06.2015, 10.08.2015, 13.08.2015, 26.08.2015 and on 07.01.2016 with the Plaintiff and the DMRC officials to carry out a detailed assessment of such loss/damage caused to the buildings.
Plaintiff by its letter dated 05.04.2015 notified the Defendant and Surveyor about the expenses incurred on account of treatment of occupant Mr Chander Mohan R/o property No G-3/3, Model Town-III, Delhi who suffered injuries i.e. fracture on neck and hip. Plaintiff by its letter dated 15.09.2015 informed/notified the Surveyor that it had completed the restoration/repair work and had incurred the expenses of Rs. 78,66,922/-. By said intimation, Plaintiff also forwarded the entire details of the such expenditure and calling upon the Surveyor to release 75% of the said amount.
The Surveyor failed to respond to the letter of Plaintiff dated 15.09.2015. Plaintiff sent a Reminder dated 24.12.2015 to the Surveyor. The Plaintiff submitted its Final Claim Form to the Surveyor alongwith Claim Bills showing the expenses incurred to carry out the repair work in its letter dated 24.12.2015 and asked Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:41:23 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 6/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. for release the claim of Rs. 78,66,922/-.
The Surveyor is stated to have submitted his Survey Report to the Defendant in or around March, 2016 for processing such claims. During this period, the officials of Plaintiff , DMRC, Surveyor and the Defendant had held series of negotiations/meetings and even prior to the assessment of such the losses. Vide several letters and e-mails, Plaintiff had kept the Defendant duly intimated of the various developments without concealing any fact from Defendant.
However, the failure on part of Defendant in settling the claims of Plaintiff despite the Defendant being in the receipt of Surveyor Report, forced the Plaintiff to sent an e-mail dated 17.04.2017 calling upon Defendant to provide the status of claims of Plaintiff. Plaintiff also asked for a formal meeting for an expeditious settlement of its claims. The said request was turned down by Defendant vide its mail dated 18.04.2017 due to non-availability of the GM-(Technical) of the Defendant.
Plaintiff sent mails dated 04.05.2016 and 11.05.2016 to the Defendant informing that it had taken all steps for mitigation of losses caused to the properties and Defendant was liable to reimburse/compensate to the Plaintiff under the CAR policy. After a series of request of the Plaintiff, a joint meeting of parties was Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:41:30 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 7/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. held on 15.03.2017, during which it was revealed by Defendant that it was in process of seeking a legal opinion regarding its liability towards the claims.
Plaintiff by its Letter dated 20.03.2017, again requested the Defendant of reimbursing the claims under the CAR policy. Plaintiff requested for a copy of the legal opinion sought by Defendant as regards its liability in respect of claims. Both parties met again on 27.03.2017 for updation of status regarding Plaintiff's claims wherein Plaintiff categorically pointed out that it had taken all diligent steps to restrict the losses apart from informing the Defendant of such steps for loss/damages caused to the properties. Plaintiff had submitted all documents and information in respect of the claims. In the meeting, it was pointed out that claim of Plaintiff was not rejected or objected to either by Surveyor or by Defendant and it was for the Defendant to release the amounts of claims.
Defendant however by its Repudiation Letter dated 17.10.2017 informed the Plaintiff that claims of Plaintiff fell under section II of the Policy, as per which, unless there was an adjudication of the alleged losses/injury caused to third party, defendant was not liable to indemnify the Plaintiff. The said stand of Defendant was contrary to Section II of the CAR Policy, which envisaged as Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:41:37 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 8/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. follows:
"Section -II- Third Party Liability with Cross liability cover
1. Limit of indemnity in respect of anyone accident or series of accidents arising out of one event-AOA Rs. 5 Crore
2. Total Limit of Section II during policy period- AOY i.e. Rs. 25 Crore"
The Repudiation Letter was not only contrary to the terms of the CAR Policy but also contrary to the recommendations of Surveyor Report. The claims as submitted by Plaintiff and as certified by the Surveyor were admissible to the tune of Rs. 78,66,922/-, which the Defendant was liable to release to the Plaintiff. The Defendant wrongfully repudiated the claims of Plaintiff and retained the amount with them for which the Plaintiff is also entitled for an interest of 18% per annum calculated w.e.f October, 2015 on the amount of Rs. 78,66,922/- and thus totaling at Rs. 1,16,43,044/-.
Plaint avers that subject matter of the suit is a "Commercial Dispute", as provided under Section 2(1) (c)(i) of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Plaintiff has prayed for recovery of amount of Rs. 1,16,43,044/- against Defendant along-with interest pendente-
lite and future @ 18% per annum. Digitally signed
RAVINDER by RAVINDER
BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:41:46 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 9/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
3. Summons of suit were issued upon the Defendant. The Defendant appeared and contested the suit by filing its written Statement wherein it contended inter-alia :
Defendant was a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and written statement was filed through Ms Mandakini Balodhi, Authorized Representative of the Defendant working as Senior Divisional Manager in the Company.
Defendant accepted that Plaintiff was issued a CAR Policy bearing no. 21200/44/2012/43 based upon the representations of Plaintiff for the period of 09.01.2012 to 08.02.2015 (including 12 months extended maintenance period). Defendant accepted that the period was further extended on receiving requisite premiums from Plaintiff to extend its coverage till 03.02.2018. Defendant did not deny the damages caused to the buildings in the Model Town area due to excavation/construction works of Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff at the time of issuance of Policy agreed to the terms of Coverage Policy and one of the conditions under the Head Section II of the Policy stated as :
" No admission, offer, promise, payment or indemnity shall be made or given by or on behalf Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:41:52 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 10/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. of the Insured without the written consent of the Company who shall be entitled, if they so desire, to take over and conduct in the name of the insured, the defence or settlement of any claim or to prosecute for their own benefit in the name of the insured any claim of indemnity or damage or otherwise and shall have full discretion in the conduct of any proceeding or in the settlement of any claim and the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company may require".
The Plaintiff had incurred other miscellaneous expenses during the course of the repair work. The Plaintiff had settled few claims and deposited amounts without the consent of the Defendant. The Defendant obtained legal opinion from its Panel Advocate Mr Vineet Malhotra and who rendered his opinion on 12.07.2017. On the basis of the said legal opinion received by Defendant, the Defendant repudiated the claims of the Plaintiff by letter dated 17.10.2017.
On merits, Defendant denied that Mr Rajiv Kumar was the authorized signatory of the Plaintiff. To the contents of Paras no. 2 to 8 of the Plaint, Defendant stated that these were matter of record Digitally signed RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:42:00 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 11/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and needed no reply. To the contents of para no. 9, Defendant admitted that Plaintiff had sent an e-mail dated 19.02.2015 informing about the damage caused to building situated at the back side of property no. G-3/3 Model Town, Delhi. No estimation of the loss was informed.
The Surveyor appointed by the Defendant was neither a legal authority nor recommendation made by him was any admission on part of Defendant or binding upon the Defendant. Rest of the contents of Para no. 29 to 35 were also denied as false and frivolous.
To the contents of para no. 10, 12, 13, 16 and 19 to 26 of the Plaint, Defendant stated that these were matter of record and needed no reply and Plaintiff should be put to strict proof for the same. To the contents of paras no. 11, 14, 15, 17,18 and 27, Defendant denied the same stating that these were false and frivolous.
Similarly, Para no. 28 to 30 of the Plaint were denied as false and frivolous and it was contended that as per clause-II of the CAR Policy, Defendant was not liable to make any payment unless admitted by Defendant or adjudicated by any authority having legal sanction. Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:42:06 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 12/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. It is observable that the written statement in fact contains flat and simple denials to Plaint averments and the denials seem simplistic without putting forth Defendant's own version.
4. In the Replication, Plaintiff reiterated its version in the plaint while refuting the contentions of Defendant.
By Order dated 26.08.2023, the following issues were settled for adjudication :-
Issue no. 1: Whether the defendant rightly repudiated the claim of the Plaintiff vide letter dated 17.10.2017? OPD Issue no. 2: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.1,16,43,044/- from the defendant ? OPP Issue no. 3: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the suit amount, if so, at what rate and for what period ? OPP Issue no. 4: Relief.
5. Plaintiff in order to prove its case examined Sh. Rajiv Kumar as PW-1. PW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A and proved Power of Attornies dated 03.05.2018 in his favour Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:42:13 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 13/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. as Ex. PW1/1, Ex. PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3, Contract no. CC-04 as Ex.PW1/9, Insurance Policy commencing from 09.01.2012 to 08.02.2018 as Ex.PW1/10, e-mail dated 19.02.2015 of Plaintiffs as Ex.PW1/12, of e-mail dated 09.03.2015 of Defendant as Ex.PW1/13, e- mail dated 24.03.2015 as Ex.PW1/14, e-mail dated 05.04.2015 as Ex.PW1/15, e-mail dated 17.04.2017 as Ex.PW1/19, e-mail dated 18.04.2017 as Ex.PW1/20, e-mail dated 05.04.2016 as Ex.PW1/21, e- mail dated 11.05.2016 Ex.PW1/22, e-mail dated 20.03.2017 as Ex.PW1/23, Minutes of meeting dated 27.03.2017 as Ex.PW1/24, Repudiation letter dated 17.10.2017 as Ex.PW1/25, Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as Ex.PW1/26.
Plaintiff also examined PW2 Sh. Chetan Kumar Jain, General Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor who proved his Surveyor Report (already Ex. PW1/18) and the Enclosures to the Survey Report received by Plaintiff as Ex. PW2/A (colly) (from page no. 1 to 277 of documents) 6 Defendant in order to prove its case examined Sh. Nawal Singh as DW-1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.DW1/A. DW-1 proved the xerox of Power of Attorney dated 12.09.2022 as Ex.DW1/1 (running from page no.7 to 11 on paper book), Power of Attorney dated 11.02.2019 in favour of Ms. Mandakini Balodhi as Ex.DW1/2 (at page no. 14 to 18 on paper book) and legal opinion of Advocate Mr. Vineet Malhotra (running upto page no. 51 to 61 on paper Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:42:20 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 14/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. book) as Ex.DW1/3.
Submissions of Plaintiff 7 Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff argued that the CAR Policy issued by Defendant expressly covered the third party liability with cross liability cover and indemnity in respect of accident arising out of either a single event or a series of events with total indemnity limit extending to Rs.25,00,00,000/-. Ld. Counsel submits that the said Policy was extended from time to time by Defendant with such an extension, duly effected on 09.11.2017 covering all risks and the premiums paid by Plaintiff are not in dispute in continuation of the CAR Policy, as per GCC of the Contract. Ld. Counsel submits that ignoring the Survey Report and on the basis of mere opinion of lawyer Mr Vineet Malhotra, which was taken as an afterthought, the Defendant repudiated the claims of Plaintiff in an illegal manner.
8. Ld. Counsel argued that Defendant did not raise any opposition to the claims based on Policy conditions throughout the period between March 2015 and October 2017 and claims were still under consideration, Ld. Counsel argued that Plaintiff was entitled to be indemnified fully to the extent of the sum insured by the Defendant. Ld. Counsel referred to barrage of communication in the form of e-mails and Digitally signed RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:42:31 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 15/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. letters, joint visits of Surveyor alongwith officials of DMRC and Plaintiff on the site of repair works. He further referred to Letter of Plaintiff dated 05.04.2015 notifying the expenses, Letter of intimation dated 15.09.2015 sent to the Surveyor informing him of the complete details of the expenses of Rs. 78,66,922/- incurred and Reminder dated 24.12.2015 to Surveyor, Ld. Counsel argued that the Plaintiff did not get any response from Defendant.
9. Ld. Counsel drew my attention to the testimony of DW-1 Nawal Singh and argued that in the absence of any authority letter, the witness had no authority to depose on behalf of Defendant company. Ld. Counsel further referred to the cross-examination of DW-1 to argue that the witness acknowledged all e-mails received from Plaintiff and the Minutes of Meeting dated 27.03.2017 and further admitted that there was no single objection raised to the claims uptill 27.03.2017 by Defendant. Ld. Counsel argued that the witness i.e. Advocate based upon whose legal opinion dated 12.07.2017, the claim was rejected was not examined by Defendant, which itself rendered the falsity of defence of Defendant apparent.
10 Ld Counsel points to the Final Claim Form (FCF) submitted to the Surveyor alongwith claim bills reflecting the actual costs by its letter dated 24.12.2015 to argue that Defendant was kept informed at all points of time, but did never object at any stage of the proceedings to Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:42:39 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 16/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. such claims. Ld. Counsel submits that Defendant failed to respond to the letters and e-mails of Plaintiff and instead issued a Repudiation Letter dated 17.10.2017 citing the reason that the claims lodged by Plaintiff fell under Section II of the CAR Policy, which was clearly contrary to the stipulations regarding third party liability with a cross liability cover.
11. Ld. Counsel submits that the Defendant took false and baseless plea of some alleged settlement entered into by Plaintiff with third party, to repudiate claims of Plaintiff in an illegal manner. Ld. Counsel argues that the Defendant had acknowledged the damages occurred to the buildings, appointed its Surveyor besides acknowledging the Report of Surveyor. Ld. Counsel argues that the Defendant did not dispute the Report of Surveyor and any deviation from conclusions of Survey Report was uncalled for on part of Defendant. Ld. Counsel has relied upon Sri Venkateshwara Syndicate v Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2009) 8 SCC 507 to argue that the Defendant could not have arbitrarily rejected the findings of Survey Report. Ld. Counsel has further relied upon New India Assurance Company Limited v Mudit Roadways, (2024) 3 SCC 193, to argue that the Survey Report could not be departed from by the Insurer. While relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance v M/s Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd & ors (DOD 16.05.2024) and IRDA guidelines, Ld. Counsel argued that the Surveyor Report Ex. PW1/18 correctly and impartially assessed the losses claimed under the Policy and thus had a statutory recognition.
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:42:45 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 17/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Submissions of Defendant
12. Ld. Counsel for Defendant argues that the Plaintiff was issued the CAR policy in question for a period from 09.10.2012 to 08.02.2016 and the same was extended by the Defendant on receipt of requisite premiums to an extended coverage uptill 03.02.2018. Ld. Counsel has drawn my attention to the various conditions under the Policy Contract to argue that the word " Legal Liability" in Sec II of CAR Policy was significant, which meant that the liability to indemnify under Section II of the policy was legal in nature. Ld. Counsel submitted that the liability would only become legal liability, once the same was admitted by Defendant or adjudicated by any judicial forum/ authority or an Arbitrator. Ld. Counsel emphasized that the third party liability in terms of Section II (Condition No-02) of the Policy without such admission or adjudication would not become legal liability and the claims were repudiated.
13. Ld. Counsel further argued that in a Contract of Insurance, there was a requirement of uberima fides i.e. good faith on the part of the Plaintiff/Insured, but Plaintiff went ahead by settling with third parties without written consent of Defendant with malafide intent. Ld. Counsel argued that in the absence of prior written consent taken from Defendant before payment to third person, Plaintiff's claim could not be Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:43:07 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 18/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. entertainable, since the Defendant had no opportunity to verify the genuineness of such claims and defend liability.
14 Ld. Counsel also referred to the Arbitral proceedings between Plaintiff and DMRC in which Plaintiff had claimed payments for the damages caused to buildings, being one of its claims in its SOC filed before Ld. Arbitrator and thus Plaintiff was barred from seeking any indemnification under the Policy i.e. to claim double compensation for same incident from Defendant.
15. To the Survey Report, Ld. Counsel relied upon the decisions of New India Assurance Company Ltd v Pradeep Kumar, MANU/SC/1032/2009 and National Insurance Co. Ltd v Hareshwar Enterprise P Ltd ; MANU/SC/0544/2021 and contended that the Survey Report was not binding on the parties. Ld. Counsel further relied upon the decisions of Export Credit Guarante Corporation of India v Garg Sons International ; MANU/SC/0039/2013 ; United India Insurance Co. Ltd v Harchand Rai Chandan Lal ; MANU/SC/0803/2004; Sikka Papers Ltd v National Insurance Company Ltd ; MANU/SC/0907/2009 ; Watts Electronics Private Ltd v M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd & ors CC/280/2020 before National Commission Disputes Redressal ; Reliance Life Insurance v Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod , MANU/SC/0593/2019, Life Insurance Corporation of India v Manish Gupta, MANU/SC/0599/2019 ; Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v Mahendra Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:43:15 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 19/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Construction , MANU/SC/0544/2021 ; Satwant Kaur Sandhu v New India Assurance Co Ltd , MANU/SC/1164/2009 ; and contended that the liability had to be determined on the basis of strict interpretation of the terms of Contract.
Analysis and Evidence Appraisal
16. Order XVIII Rule 1 of CPC recognizes the general rule that the Plaintiff in a suit must prove his case. The Latin maxim says : Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat i.e the burden of proof is on him, who asserts and not on him who denies and the same is in consonance with sections 101 to 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
17. As per Section-101 of The Indian Evidence Act, Plaintiff must prove the existence of legal right in his favour and positively establish its case on the basis of material available. Plaintiff cannot rely upon the weakness or absence of defence to discharge this onus. Once the Plaintiff discharges that onus and makes out a case, which entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the Plaintiff to the same. It is also a settled law that in case, evidence is not led by the party, an adverse inference may be drawn, under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Digitally signed
RAVINDER by RAVINDER
BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:43:21 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 20/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 18 In the light of above-said position, I have heard final submissions as addressed by ld. Counsel for parties and perused the entire record meticulously. I have also gone into the written synopsis coupled with judicial precedents relied and my issue-wise findings are herein below :
Issue no. 1: Whether the defendant has rightly repudiated the claim by the Plaintiff vide letter dated 17.10.2017? OPD
19. The onus of proving this issue was upon the Defendant.
It would be apposite to look into the defence of Defendant. The Defendant's objection to the claims of the Plaintiff was that the since there was breach of condition no. 02 of Policy, the Repudiation Letter was legally justifiable and also that the Survey Report of the Surveyor was not binding upon the parties.
20. The Defendant examined the sole witness Mr Nawal Singh as DW-1, who testified by way of an Affidavit and filed his Power of Attorney as DW1/1 (in photocopy form) alongwith Legal opinion of Advocate as Ex. DW1/3 (xerox). The relevant excerpt of DW-1 during his examination recorded on 17.02.2025 and 29.03.2025 is as follows:
" I am working as Manager in the Legal Hub in NRO-1, New Delhi, Asaf Ali Road, of the Defendant company. It Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:43:27 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 21/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is correct that I have not filed the original POA of Ex.DW-1/1 on record. It is also correct that I have not filed any authorization / POA dated 15.07.2021 as mentioned in Ex.DW-1/1 in favor of Mr. Premraj Tripathi on record.
It is also correct that I have not filed any authorization / POA dated 27.12.2016 as mentioned in Ex.DW-1/1 in favor of Mr. Rahul Duggal on record. Mr. Rahul Duggal, who exhibited Ex.DW-1/2 in favour of Ms. Mandakini Balodhi was authorized by General Manager, Head Office, and was empowered further to execute POA. I have not knowledge as to who authorized Mr. Rahul Duggal, who in turn was empowers to further authorize Ms. Mandakini Balodhi.
It is wrong to suggest that I am not authorized by any proper document on record and does not have any authority to depose on behalf o Defendant company. It is wrong to suggest that in the absence of an authorization having filed in favor of Mr. Premraj, as per Ex.DW-1/1, who could have authorized me to further depose, I am not authorized for deposition.
I have never dealt with the Plaintiff company. Vol. The RAVINDER Digitally signed by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:43:33 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 22/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. legal Hub Department does not directly deal with the client insured. I was assigned with this Court case by my In-charge in the year 2022 and I am dealing with the same. I am aware of the facts of the case as per record received by us. .."
21. To the question of whether the Plaintiff was informed by any letter of any breach committed under the Policy conditions, prior to Repudiation Letter, DW-1 denied of the same and deposed as :
" I have no document, letter or any e-mail communication to show that prior to the repudiation letter Ex.PW-1/25, Defendant had sent any letter to Plaintiff in respect of alleged breach committed. It is correct that Defendant did not answer the e-mails Ex.PW-1/19 (uptil page no.293-299).
DW-1 is shown joint meetings and minutes of meeting dated 27.03.2017 Ex.PW-1/24 (admitted document). After going through the same, DW-1 has been shown the contents of the Ex.PW-1/24 and especially para no. 301 Mark-A thereof, he admits that till that time, i.e. uptil 27.03.2017, Defendant had not raised any objection to the claims of the Plaintiff.
It is wrong to suggest that the legal opinion Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:43:39 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 23/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Ex.DW-1/3 dated 12.07.2017 has been obtained by the Defendant as an after thought and is not binding on the Plaintiff. It is wrong to suggest that Ex.DW-1/3 is mere an advisory opinion and has no binding effect upon Plaintiff and is only created just to take wrongful benefit in the proceedings in favor of Plaintiff.
I am not aware of any survey report filed by any independent Surveyor. I am also not aware of any objections raised or forwarded on behalf of Defendant company. ,.."
22. The testimony of DW-1 would reveal that he is not conversant with the factual particulars. DW-1 also failed to prove his authority or competence to depose on behalf of Defendant on the strength of xerox of Ex. DW1/1. DW-1 did not bring any document showing him to be authorized by Defendant for deposition and the xerox of POA Ex. DW1/1 being not proved as per the provisions of The Evidence Act ; the testimony of DW-1 has to be eschewed from consideration. Even otherwise, DW-1 is neither privy to the Survey Report nor has any personal knowledge of the process of investigation/Survey conducted by Defendant.
23. The assessment of losses by the approved Survey Report is a pre-requisite for payment of such claims. At the same time, the Survey Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:43:45 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 24/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Report has the statutory recognition and can be relied upon to decide the claims. Though the Report is not the last word but may be the basis of foundation for settlement of claims by the Insurer. It must be given weightage unless there is sufficient reason to disregard it. Reference can be drawn from the decisions of New India Assurance Company ltd v Pradeep Kumar (2009) 7 SCC 787, Sri Venkateshwara Syndicate v Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2009) 8 SCC 507 and New India Assurance Company Limited v Mudit Roadways.
24. Having carefully mulled over the Survey Report Ex. PW1/18 which is duly proved by PW-2. I find that the same contains a detailed and elaborative analysis of the incident and elements relating to cause and extent of loss through physical site inspections, assessment of quantum and other related factors. The testimony of Surveyor/ PW-2 Mr Chetan Kumar Jain has remained uncontroverted. In his cross- examination, PW-2 remained coherent while reiterating his version.
25 The Defendant chose not to examine the Surveyor or the lawyer Mr Vineet Malhotra, based upon whose Report, the claims of Plaintiff were repudiated. The Defendant while denying the Survey Report did not come up with any evidence much less cogent one for ignoring the conclusion of Survey Report and preferring some belated opinion taken from lawyer to repudiate the claims.
Digitally signed
RAVINDER by RAVINDER
BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:43:51 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 25/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
26. Even otherwise, it is not the Defendant's case that the Survey conducted by the Surveyor was faulty and was rejected by Defendant prior to taking some independent opinion from lawyer. Hon'ble Supreme Court in decisions of National Insurance Company Limited v. Hareshwar Enterprises Private Limited [(2021) SCC Online SC 628] and National Insurance Company Limited v. Vedic Resorts and Hotels Private Limited [2023 SCC OnLine SC 648] held that the Surveyor Report is a credible and reliable evidence. Hon'ble Court has further observed that independent experts' report is on a theoretical basis, while the Surveyor conducts onsite inspections and thus Surveyor Report is more reliable. Since there is not a whisper of evidence having brought on record to disregard the Report Ex. PW1/18 over any other document. There is no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that Defendant failed to discharge its burden that the repudiation of claims of Plaintiff were justified under law.
Onus to prove Exclusionary Clauses or Breach
27. Whenever there is any plea of exclusionary clause or breach of condition in the Policy Contract, it is for the Insurer to show that its case falls within the purview of such clause or that breach happened on account of Insured and and the said breach being fundamental, so as to repudiate the claims.
Digitally signed
RAVINDER by RAVINDER
BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:43:57 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 26/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
28. The Hon'ble Constitution Bench in case of General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Chandumull Jain and Another AIR 1966 SC 1644 observed that : -
"11.......there is no difference between a contract of insurance and any other contract except that in a contract of insurance there is a requirement of uberima fides i.e. good faith on the part of the assured and the contract is likely to be construed contra proferentem that is against the company in case of ambiguity or doubt".
29 In Texco Marketing P Ltd v TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd (2023) 1 SCC 428, while dealing with an exclusionary clause, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the burden of proving the applicability of an exclusionary clause lies on the insurer.
30. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Ishar Das Madan Lal [2007 (4) SCC 105] , it was held that evidence of Insurer must clearly establish that the event sought to be excluded is included in the exclusionary clauses.
31. In National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Vedic Resorts And Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it was held that an exclusionary clause or a breach cannot be interpreted so that it conflicts with the main intention of Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:44:03 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 27/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. the insurance. It is further observed that it is duty of the insurer to plead and lead cogent evidence to establish the application of such a clause.
32. In case of any ambiguity, the Contract of insurance has to be construed in favour of insured. Beneficial reference of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Ishar Das Madan Lal (2007) 4 SCC 105 can be made in this regard, in which it is held that : -
"8. However, there may be an express clause excluding the applicability of insurance cover. Wherever such exclusionary clause is contained in a policy, it would be for the insurer to show that the case falls within the purview thereof. In a case of ambiguity, it is trite, the contract of insurance shall be construed in favour of the insured. "
33. In the matter of United India Insurance Company Limited v. M/s. Hyundai Engineering and Construction Company Limited and Others [Civil Appeal No. 1496 of 2023], decided on May 16, 2024 , Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the insurer has the burden of proving applicability of exclusionary clauses in insurance contracts and such clauses must be interpreted strictly against the insurer, as they may completely exempt the insurer of its liability.
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:44:09 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 28/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
34. Coming to the Condition no. 02 of the Insurance Policy, the same would read as :
" No admission, offer, promise, payment or indemnity shall be made or given by or on behalf of the insured without the written consent of the company who shall be entitled, if they so desire to take over and conduct in the name of the insured the defence or settlement of any claim or to prosecute for their own benefit in the name of the insured any claim for indemnity or damage or otherwise and shall have full discretion in the conduct of any proceeding or in the settlement of any claim and the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Comp stance as the Company may require.
35 The Condition only shows that full discretion is conferred on the Defendant in the conduct of proceedings for settlement of any claims. The words " if it so desires to conduct" are important and the Defendant is given a choice "if it so desires to conduct" the proceedings in the name of Plaintiff. In the instant case however, Defendant failed to establish any settlement allegedly entered into by Plaintiff without consent of Defendant. Defendant has not brought anything supporting the factum of any compromise entered into between Plaintiff and any third Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:44:15 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 29/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. party, which could have given rise to the occasion, leading to invoking the Condition no. 02, as the breach of Policy.
36. In other words, Defendant failed to demonstrate as to how there was breach of condition no. 02 by Plaintiff, which in turn was the basis of the Repudiation Letter Ex. PW1/25. The case of the Defendant primarily rested on the opinion of lawyer and the said opinion has not been proved under law as per The Evidence Act. The Defendant failed to putforth any ground for discarding the Survey Report Ex. PW1/18 and to prefer the lawyer's opinion over the Survey Report. The Defendant fully acknowledged the damages occurred to the buildings in Model Town area on account of excavation work of Plaintiff in pleadings. The Defendant did not refute the conclusions of Survey Report and yet disregarded the said Report for the reasons which remained inexplicable. The Defendant utterly failed to prove the factum of settlements made by Plaintiff without prior consent of Defendant so as to forfeit the claims of Plaintiff and the Plea of breach thus remained unsubstantiated.
37. The preliminary assessment dated 24.03.2015 of the Surveyor, pre-construction survey of the Surveyor and joint visits of parties on various dates between June, 2015 and January, 2016 are not denied by the Defendant. Similarly, the letters and e-mails of the Plaintiff intimating the Defendant of incurred expenditure and completion of repair works were acknowledged by Defendant. None of the mails or Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:44:21 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 30/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. letters was responded to by the Defendant nor the Survey Report was conveyed to the Plaintiff. Since Defendant was in the exclusive possession of the material evidence, but failed to bring up same in trial, an adverse inference has to be drawn that had the Defendant brought them on record, these would have contradicted its own version. In the Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Shalu v Sandeep Soni (DOD as 03.02.2016) , it was held that :
" 32. It is well settled that irrespective of the onus or the burden of proof, a party in possession of the best evidence, is bound to produce the same on record. In this regard, we may advert to the pronouncement of the Privy Council reported at AIR 1917 PC 6 T.S. Murugesam Pillai v. Manickavasaka Pandara which reads as follows:
"A practice has grown up in Indian procedure of those in possession of important documents or information lying by, trusting to the abstract doctrine of the onus of proof and failing accordingly to furnish to the Courts the best material for its decision. With regard to third parties, this may be right enough: they have no responsibility for the conduct of suit; but with regard to the parties to the suit it is, in their Lordships' opinion, an inversion of sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the written evidence in their possession which would throw light upon the proposition."Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:44:27 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 31/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
38. This was further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gopal Krishna Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif, AIR 1968 SC 1413 , wherein it was held thus:
"Even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party the Court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts at issue. It is not, in our opinion, a sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy...."
Non-Adherence to IRDA Guidelines by Defendant 39 It would be apposite to reproduce the Regulations 9(2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of the IRDA (Protection of Policyholder's Interests) Regulations, 2002 (the IRDA Regulations), which read as under :
" 9. Claim procedure in respect of a general insurance policy (2) Where the insured is unable to furnish all the particulars required by the Surveyor Report or where the Surveyor Report does not receive the full cooperation of the insured, the insurer or the Surveyor Report as the case may be, shall inform in writing the insured about the delay that may result in the assessment of the claim. The Surveyor Report shall be subjected to the code of conduct Digitally signed RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:44:32 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 32/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
laid down by the Authority while assessing the loss, and shall communicate his findings to the insurer within 30 days of his appointment with a copy of the report being furnished to the insured, if he so desires. Where, in special circumstances of the case, either due to its special and complicated nature, the Surveyor Report shall under intimation to the insured, seek an extension from the insurer for submission of his report. In no case shall a Surveyor Report take more than six months from the date of his appointment to furnish his report.
(3) If an insurer, on the receipt of a survey report, finds that it is incomplete in any respect, he shall require the Surveyor Report under intimation to the insured, to furnish an additional report on certain specific issues as may be required by the insurer. Such a request may be made by the insurer within 15 days of the receipt of the original survey report.
Provided that the facility of calling for an additional report by the insurer shall not be resorted to more than once in the case of a claim.
(4) The Surveyor Report on receipt of this communication shall furnish an additional report within three weeks of the date of receipt of communication from the insurer.
(5) On receipt of the survey report or the additional Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:44:41 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 33/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. survey report, as the case may be, an insurer shall within a period of 30 days offer a settlement of the claim to the insured. If the insurer, for any reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the insured, decides to reject a claim under the policy, it shall do so within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the survey report or the additional survey report, as the case may be.
(6) Upon acceptance of an offer of settlement as stated in sub-regulation (5) by the insured, the payment of the amount due shall be made within 7 days from the date of acceptance of the offer by the insured. In the cases of delay in the payment, the insurer shall be liable to pay interest at a rate which is 2% above the bank rate prevalent at the beginning of the financial year in which the claim is reviewed by it .."
40. As per Regulation 13(2) of the IRDA, Regulations 2015, a Surveyor appointed by the Insurer has to submit his Report to the Insurer as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 30 days of his appointment alongwith copy of his Report giving his comments. However, in the instant case, the Surveyor appointed by the Defendant on 09.03.2015 submitted his report after almost 365 days of being appointed. The said delay remained inexplicable. As per the guidelines of IRDA, Defendant had to take a decision on the claims within 30 days of receipt of the Survey Report. The Defendant mandatorily had to either Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:44:47 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 34/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. offer a settlement of claims or give reasons for rejection of claims in writing. Contrary to this, the Defendant gave its final decision on 17.10.2017 by way of a Repudiation Letter Ex. PW1/25.
41 It is not the case of Defendant that Surveyor had not received documents from the Plaintiff, required for calculation of claims. The record establishes the factum of the Surveyor having provided with all relevant documents, which has not been contradicted. The regulations passed by IRDA are binding upon all Insurers. The Defendant failed to come up with any ground much less plausible one for the delay and clearly violated the IRDA Regulations.
42 There is yet another aspect of the matter, which is that written statement of the Defendant consisted of omnibus denials. The same is not in accordance with the provisions of Order 8 Rule 3 A CPC as amended by The CC Act, 2015 as per which " where the Defendant denies an allegation of fact in a plaint, he must state his reasons for doing so and if he intends to put forward a different version of events from that given by the Plaintiff, he must state his own version". The written statement of Defendant contained only simplistic and flat denials and thus the averments of plaint are deemed to have been admitted by the Defendant.
On account of the above said, the issue stands decided against the Defendant and in favour of Plaintiff.
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:44:54 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 35/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Issue no. 2: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.1,16,43,044/- from the defendant ? OPP Issue no. 3: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the suit amount, if so, at what rate and for what period ? OPP
43. The onus to prove these issues was upon the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff examined Sh. Rajeev Kumar as PW-1. PW-1 deposed on the line of averments taken in the plaint and proved the Policy Ex. PW1/10 and barrage of mails sent to the Defendant running from Ex. PW1/12 to Ex. PW1/15 and Ex. PW1/19 to Ex. PW1/23. PW-1 deposed that the Defendant was kept in knowledge of all stages of repair works and by letter dated 15.09.2015 Ex. PW1/16, was informed of the total expenditure of Rs. 78,66,922/- incurred by the Plaintiff on repair works. Instead the claims of Plaintiff met with Repudiation Letter Ex. PW1/25.
44. The record establishes that Plaintiff was not given any intimation in respect of the assessment of his claims nor the Survey Report was provided to Plaintiff within time. From the overwhelming evidence brought on record, Plaintiff established the factum of the repair/restoration works carried on at the sites, regarding which complete Digitally signed RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:45:00 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 36/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. information alongwith documents was conveyed to the Defendant. Plaintiff also proved the claim amount of Rs. 78,66,922/- based upon the documents and Survey Assessment. The testimony of PW-1 remained uncontroverted and his cross-examination dated 22.05.2024 was confined to questions, most of which had no relevancy to the subject matter.
45. The Sureveyor/PW-2 personally conducted the Survey by having multiple visits at the sites and filed his Survey Report Ex. PW1/18. As also observed in Issue no.1, the defendant miserably failed to discharge its burden of proving the Breach under Condition 02 of the Policy. The Defendant failed to come up with any cogent reason for discarding the Survey Report. In such circumstances, I hold that Plaintiff has been able to establish its claims against Defendant on preponderance of probabilities and its entitlement for the same.
46. I also observe that the Defendant despite knowing that it had no defense to the claims raised by Plaintiff, still continued to contest the matter with an intent to delay the claims filed under the CC Act and attempted to thwart the proceedings, which cannot be countenanced, given the object and purport of The CC Act, 2015.
Interest
47 On the aspect of claiming an interest on the amount of
Digitally signed
RAVINDER by RAVINDER
BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:45:07 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 37/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Rs. 1,16,43,044/- (Rs. 78,66,922/- plus interest @18% p.a w.e.f from October 2015) pendentelite and future, Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff has prayed for an interest @ 18% p.a on the said amount till realization stating that the Defendant had withheld the lawful claims in an illegal manner for the relevant period, and Plaintiff is entitled for such an interest for the said period.
48 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as 'M/s. Jindal Realcon Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs M/s. Laxmi Narain Ram Dass & Co, (para-4) has observed as follows :
"4. The Supreme Court in a line of judgments has held that in view of changed economic scenario where there has been consistent fall in rates of interest, Courts must in accordance with the changed circumstances grant lesser rates of interest. These judgments of the Supreme Court are Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, (2005) 6 SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G. Harischandra, (2007) 2 SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan v. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC)"
(emphasis supplied).
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:45:15 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 38/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
49. Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of R.F.A. No.823 of 2004 titled as Shri Sanjay Mittal Versus Sunil Jain (decided on 07.12.2018) has held that higher rates of interest, which are against public policy, can be struck down by the Courts.
50. Keeping in view the mandate of settled law and Section-34 CPC, the interest of justice would be served if Plaintiff be granted simple rate of interest @ 10 % p.a on Rs. 1,16,43,044/- from the date of filing of suit till its realization.
Thus, Plaintiff is hereby granted simple rate of interest @ 10% p.a on Rs. 1,16,43,044/- pendente lite and future till its realization .
Both issues stand decided in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
Relief
51. From the discussion as adumbrated herein-above, the suit of the Plaintiff stands decreed against the Defendant and Plaintiff is entitled for :
a) a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,16,43,044/- (Rupees One Crore Sixteen Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Forty Four only ) alongwith simple rate of interest @ 10 % p.a pendentelite and future till its Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:45:22 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 39/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
realization.
b) The costs of the suit alongwith pleader's fee is also awarded in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant. The Plaintiff's lawyer's fees is assessed as Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed
RAVINDER by RAVINDER
BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
Announced in open Court 17:45:29 +0530
on 04.06.2025 (Ravinder Bedi)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-12
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi
____________________________________________________________________________ CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 40/ 40 CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.