Delhi District Court
Rajender Prasad Yadav vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd on 21 April, 2026
In the Court of Shri Ashutosh Kumar, District Judge (Commercial
Court)-01, Tis Hazari Courts, West District, Delhi
CS (Comm.) No. 785/2024
CNR No.DLWT01-007803-2024
Sh Rajender Prasad Yadav
S/o Sh Ram Raj Yadav
R/o G-5/290, Gali No. 14,
5th Pusta, Soniya Vihar,
Dayal Pur, North East,
New Delhi 110 094
....... Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Block No. 4, 7th Floor, DLF Tower 15,
Shivaji Marg,
New Delhi 110 015
Also at:
Regd Office: GE Plaza Airport Road,
Yerwada, Pune - 411006
Also at:
Bajaj Finserv Building
1st Floor, Behind Weikfiled IT Park,
Viman Nagar, Pune 411014
........Defendant
Date of Institution : 07-09-2024
Date of hearing of arguments : 18-04-2026
CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.1
Date of decision : 21-04-2026
Counsel for the plaintiff : Sh Ajay Kumar Yadav
Counsel for the Defendant : Sh Sujit Kumar Jaswal
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff's case is that plaintiff is the owner of commercial vehicle EICHER PRO 1075 F HSD Truck bearing registration no. DL-1LAB-1545, Make 2018, which was insured by the defendant company vide policy no. OG-23-1101-1803-00005537 and the same was valid from 28.09.2022 to 27.09.2023.
2. Plaintiff has claimed that due to his hectic schedule, he had given his aforesaid vehicle to one Ajay Kumar Chaurasia to look after the same and operate the said vehicle on monthly income basis. It is further averred that the said vehicle of the plaintiff alongwith all its documents got stolen from the front of the house of plaintiff's driver namely Govind s/o Sh. Charan Das R/o Village Hasan Pur Mansoori, P.S. Khekda, District Baghpat, U.P on 11-06-2023, qua which an FIR bearing no. 0230/2023 under section 379 IPC, PS Khekda, District Baghpat, U.P. was registered. However, an untraced report qua the same was filed by Police Station Khekra, Uttar Pradesh, which was accepted by the concerned court on 29.01.2024. It is claimed that at the time of aforesaid incident of theft, the said stolen vehicle of the plaintiff was under the supervision of aforesaid Ajay Kumar Chaurasia. It is further the CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.2 case of the plaintiff that there was no clear communication from the end of the defendant and failure of settlement of the claim towards the abovesaid stolen vehicle of the plaintiff as a result of which, the plaintiff has undergone mental agony and harassment as the plaintiff was earning an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month approx. from the said vehicle prior to its theft.
3. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he had brought to the notice of the defendant that his aforesaid vehicle had got stolen and requested for settlement of his insurance claim but the defendant did not pay any heed towards his repeated humble requests and avoided him on one pretext or the other and due to the conduct of the defendant, it was clear that the intention of the defendant was not good towards the settlement of the claim of the stolen vehicle of the plaintiff. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he had made a claim in an appropriate form and had sent the same along with relevant documents i.e. Insurance Package Policy schedule along with receipt, copy of FIR No.230/2023, Letter to MLO dated 01.07.2023, untraced report dated 29.01.2024, copy of bank passbook via speed post dated 05.04.2024, which were duly received by dealing official of defendant company on 08.05.2024. Plaintiff waited for a reasonable time but the defendant did nothing towards the claim of the plaintiff regarding the stolen vehicle and hence the plaintiff was compelled to send a CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.3 legal notice dated 09-05-2024 to the defendant demanding the value of aforesaid stolen vehicle along with damages and compensation, which was sent on 11.05.2024 and duly served upon the defendant. It is also claimed by the plaintiff that on account of protracted delays on the part of the defendant company, the insurance claim of the plaintiff has not been entertained and realized by the defendant without assigning any cogent reason, despite the fact that the plaintiff had duly supplied all the necessary documents along with claim demanded by the defendant and further the document sought/ required from the plaintiff were primarily of public nature and could have been accessed and verified by the defendant Insurance Company itself.
4. Defendant filed written statement, taking preliminary objections that plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands, suppressed material facts, has no locus standi to file the present suit being not the owner of the vehicle bearing no. DL-1LAB-1545 on the date, which it got stolen. While admitting the insurance policy in the name of plaintiff for truck bearing no. DL 1LAB 1545 vide policy no. OG-23-1101-1803-00005537 being valid from 28.09.2022 to 27.09.2023, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff had no insurable interest in the said vehicle as the plaintiff had sold it to one Ajay Kumar Chaurasia on 30-11-2020 and hence Plaintiff was not the owner of the said vehicle on the CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.4 date of its theft. It is further stated that from the documents gathered and statements recorded during the course of investigation carried out, it was revealed that the aforesaid vehicle was sold by the plaintiff to one Ajay Kumar Chaurasia prior to the date of loss and hence the plaintiff had no right to claim any amount from the defendant and to file the present suit.
5. It is further stated that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the defendant as on receiving intimation, the defendant had immediately deputed investigator "A One Investigators", who met Ajay Kumar Chaurasia on 12.6.2023, who in turn submitted a dully filled claim form, in which he categorically stated that he had purchased the insured vehicle from the plaintiff on 30.11.2020 but did not get it transferred in his name and further submitted sale document in the form of an affidavit of the plaintiff in which mode of sale consideration etc. were mentioned in details and also informed that he had also paid all the EMIs of the vehicle as agreed in addition to the down payment. It is further claimed by the defendant that the vehicle was purchased by Ajay Kumar Chaurasia from the plaintiff on 30.11.2020 but he did not get the vehicle registered or the insurance of the vehicle transferred in his name. It is also claimed that on the basis of investigation report submitted by the investigator, the defendant insurance company had asked clarifications qua which no CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.5 response was given by Ajay Kumar Chaurasia and accordingly the claim of the Ajay Kumar Chaurasia was repudiated vide letter dated 22.8.2023. It is claimed that the defendant had repudiated the said claim stating the reason, which is reproduced as under:-
"As has been stated your good self that you have purchased the above said vehicle from Mr Rajender Yadav, however at the material time of theft of the bike, ownership of the vehicle and policy has not been transferred in your name, hence there is no contract of insurance between you and us and as such you have no locus standi to claim against us".
6. It is further claimed by the defendant that insurance is a contract of indemnity wherein the insurer agrees to indemnify the insured in event of the insured suffering loss due to any peril, the principles of insurance contract is based on the principle of insurable interest wherein only the insured can seek indemnification in lieu of the loss suffered and since in the present suit the insured had sold the subject vehicle and was no longer deemed to be insured for the purposes of insured contract and therefore the insurer was qualified and correct in principle to repudiate the claim of the plaintiff for non-compliance of IMT clause General regulations 17 which reads as under:-
"In case of package policies, transfer of the "own damage" section of the policy in favour of the transferee, shall be made by the insurer only on receipt of a specific request from the transferee along with consent of the transferor".CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.6
7. On merits, the defendant admitted the insurance policy as well as the fact that plaintiff had filed a claim for loss of said vehicle on account of theft. Defendant has given general denial to the averments made in the plaint and denied that the plaintiff is entitled to any relief and the claim.
8. Plaintiff filed replication denying the contents of W.S and reiterating the contents of his plaint.
9. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 10-07-2025:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount i.e. Rs. 9,00,000/-, as claimed by the plaintiff? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any pendente lite or future interest @ 18% per annum? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- per month from the date of incident of theft till realization, as claimed by the plaintiff? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff had sold the vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1LAB-1545 prior to filing of the suit and he was not the owner of the vehicle in question on the date of theft? If so, its effect? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff has concealed/suppressed the material facts and manufactured false documents? If so, its effects? OPD
6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD
7. Relief.
10. Plaintiff has examined himself as his sole witness as PW-1. On the other hand, defendant has also examined its Assistant Manager (Legal) (A.R.) as DW-1.
11. PW-1 Rajender Prasad Yadav tendered his affidavit of evidence CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.7 Ex. PW-1/A and relied upon following documents, which are summarized as under:-
i) Copy of Aadhar card of PW-1- Ex. PW1/1 (OSR)
ii) Copy of RC of my commercial vehicle Eicher Pro 1075 F HSD Truck bearing registration No. DL-1LAB-1545, make 2018 - Ex. P1
iii) The copy of claim dated 05.04.2024 - Ex. P2
iv) Computerized copy of insurance package policy schedule along with receipt - Ex. PW1/4 (colly)
v) Copy of FIR No. 230/2023 - Ex. P3
vi) Copy of letter to MLO dated 01.07.2023 - Ex. PW1/6 (Receiving copy seen and returned)
vii) Copy of untraced report dated 29.01.2024 - Ex. PW1/7 (certified copy seen and returned)
viii) The copy of bank passbook - Ex. PW1/8 (OSR)
ix) The postal receipt along with tracking report - Ex. PW1/9 (colly)
x) Copy of legal notice, postal receipts and tracking reports - Ex. P4, Ex. P5 and Ex. P6 respectively.
xi) Original Non-Starter Report dated 30.07.2024 - Ex. P7
xii) No objection certificate dated 10.07.2023 by the Indusind Bank - Ex. PW1/14 (OSR).
Xiii) Certificate under Section 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Ex. PW1/15 The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
12. DW-1 Ms Eileen Rose Tirkey, Assistant Manager (Legal) of defendant company tendered her affidavit of evidence Ex. DW-1/A and relied upon following documents:-
i. Power of attorney - Ex. DW-1/1 (OS&R) ii. Copy of policy with policy wordings- Ex. DW-1/2 CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.8 iii. Investigation report - Ex DW-1/3 iv. Claim form - Ex DW-1/4 v. Aadhar Card, Pan Card and Driving License of Ajay Kumar Chaurasia mentioned as Ex DW-1/5 to Ex DW-1/7 in affidavit of evidence Ex. DW-1/A are de-exhibited being photocopies and marked as Mark A to C respectively vi. Statement of Ajay Kumar Chaurasia submitted to the Investigator
- Ex DW-1/8 vii. Copy of Affidavit dated 30-11-2020 is already Ex. PW-1/DX-1 viii. Office copies of letters dated 21-07-2023, 03.08.2023 and 22-08- 2023 with postal receipts - Ex DW-1/9 to Ex DW-1/11 respectively (objected to by Ld Counsel for the plaintiff being not original documents) ix. FIR bearing no. 0230/2023 dated 11-06-2023 - Ex. PW-1/5 DW-1 was cross-examined by Ld Counsel for the plaintiff.
13. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties, perused the brief written submissions filed by the parties, have also gone through the judgments relied upon by the parties and the case file.
14.Before adverting to Issue No. 1, it is necessary to first deal with Issue No. 4, as the said issue goes to the very root of the matter. The defence of the defendant is fundamentally premised on the plea that the plaintiff had already sold the vehicle prior to the date of theft and, therefore, had no insurable interest on the date of loss. In the event this contention is accepted, the plaintiff would not be entitled to maintain the present claim at all. Thus, the determination of ownership and insurable interest on the date of theft is a foundational issue, the decision whereof has a direct CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.9 bearing on the adjudication of the plaintiff's entitlement to recovery under Issue No. 1. It is for this reason that Issue No. 4 is taken up for consideration at the outset.
15. My issue-wise findings on the issues are as under.
ISSUE NO. 4"4. Whether the plaintiff had sold the vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1LAB-1545 prior to filing of the suit and he was not the owner of the vehicle in question on the date of theft? If so, its effect? OPD
16.The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant.
17.It is an admitted position that: (i) the vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1LAB-1545 stood registered in the name of the plaintiff on the date of theft i.e. 11.06.2023; (ii) a valid insurance policy no. OG-23-1101-1803-00005537, covering the period 28.09.2022 to 27.09.2023, existed in the name of the plaintiff on the date of theft; (iii) the vehicle was stolen on 11-06-2023, during the subsistence of the said policy; and (iv) an FIR was registered and an untraced report was accepted by the competent court. These four facts, which stand admitted by the defendant in its written statement and in the cross-examination of DW-1, form the bedrock of the plaintiff's entitlement to the insured claim.
18.DW-1 herself admitted in her cross-examination dated 16-01- 2026 that as per the insurance policy, the plaintiff was the CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.10 registered owner of the vehicle in question at the relevant time. She further conceded that the claim form is to be filed by the insured i.e. the registered owner, and that the person filing the claim must be the insured in the valid insurance policy at the time of theft. These admissions by the defendant's own witness are fatal to its defence as the plaintiff was precisely the insured under the valid policy on the date of theft. The relevant portion of cross- examination of DW-1 is reproduced as under:-
"As per the insurance policy, the plaintiff was the registered owner of the vehicle in question at the relevant time. The claim pertaining to theft of vehicle in question rejected by the defendant company, was not filed by the plaintiff.
It is correct that from the investigator report it was clear to the defendant company that Ajay Kumar Chaurasia, who had claimed for theft of the vehicle was the owner of the vehicle in question. It is correct that no communication was made to the plaintiff. Volun. The repudiation letter was issued to the person who had made the claim for theft of the vehicle was accordingly issued to Ajay Kumar Chaurasia.
It is correct that in the case of theft of insured vehicle, besides the registered owner anybody who has purchased the said vehicle but registration not transferred in his name or was in possession of the said vehicle, can file the insurance claim. Volun. The person filing the claim must be the insured in the valid insurance policy at the time of theft.
Q. Is it correct that the claim form can only be filed by the registered CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.11 owner?
Ans. It can be filed by the insured (registered owner)."
19. The defendant has sought to prove the alleged sale primarily on the basis of a purported affidavit dated 30.11.2020 (Ex. PW1/DX-1) of the plaintiff. However, a careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that the said document has not been duly proved in accordance with law. The plaintiff, in his cross-examination, while stating that the signatures appearing on the said document resemble his signatures, has categorically denied having executed or sworn any such affidavit or having sold the vehicle. It is well settled that mere admission of signatures does not amount to admission of execution of the document or acceptance of its contents, particularly when execution is specifically denied. The defendant has neither examined any attesting witness nor the scribe of the said affidavit, nor any person in whose presence the alleged affidavit was signed by the plaintiff. In absence of such evidence, the execution and contents of the said affidavit remain unproved and the same cannot be relied upon to establish transfer of ownership.
20. The defendant has further relied upon the purported statement of Ajay Kumar Chaurasia (Ex. DW1/8) recorded by the investigator. However, admittedly, the said Ajay Kumar Chaurasia has not been examined as a witness in the present proceedings.
CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.12Consequently, his alleged statement remains untested by cross- examination and falls within the category of hearsay evidence. It is a settled principle of evidence that such statements cannot be relied upon to prove the truth of their contents. The non- examination of the very person who is alleged to be the purchaser of the vehicle, casts a serious doubt on the case of the defendant and leads to an adverse inference against it.
21. Similarly, the investigation report (Ex. DW1/3), which forms a substantial part of the defendant's defence, has also not been duly proved in accordance with law. The investigator who allegedly conducted the investigation, has not been examined. The witness produced by the defendant, namely DW-1, has admitted that she had no personal knowledge of the investigation and was deposing only on the basis of records. In such circumstances, the investigation report cannot be treated as substantive evidence and is liable to be discarded.
22. The defendant has also attempted to rely upon certain surrounding circumstances, such as the fact that Ajay Kumar Chaurasia was in possession of the vehicle, that he was paying the insurance premiums and EMIs, and that he had informed the insurance company about the theft of the vehicle and lodged the FIR. However, these circumstances, even if accepted, do not conclusively establish the sale of the vehicle. The plaintiff has offered a plausible explanation that due to lack of business during CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.13 and after the COVID-19 lockdown, he had given the vehicle to Ajay Kumar Chaurasia for commercial use on monthly charges. Such an arrangement is not uncommon in the transport business and, in the absence of any written agreement, may still subsist based on mutual understanding. Even if it is assumed, though not duly proved that Ajay Kumar Chaurasia was in possession and was making payments towards EMIs or insurance premiums, the same does not by itself amount to transfer of ownership, particularly when the registration and insurance policy continued to stand in the name of the plaintiff.
23. It is also noteworthy that the defendant has not produced any independent documentary evidence such as bank records, payment receipts, or loan account statements to conclusively establish that the consideration for the alleged sale of vehicle was paid by Ajay Kumar Chaurasia to the plaintiff or that the financial obligations qua the vehicle stood transferred to him. Even otherwise, such payments would at best indicate a financial arrangement and not a legal transfer of ownership.
24.It is further pertinent to note that no documents evidencing trans-
fer of ownership in terms of statutory requirements, namely duly filled in Form 29 and Form 30 by the plaintiff in favour of Ajay Kumar Chaurasia, under the Motor Vehicles Act, have been proved on record by the defendant. These forms constitute the pri-
CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.14mary and mandatory documents for effecting and reporting trans- fer of ownership before the registering authority. The defendant has neither produced the said forms nor led any evidence to show that the same were ever executed or submitted. Rather during course of the arguments, Ld. Counsel for the defendant had admit- ted that the plaintiff has not signed any said duly filled in form 29 and 30 by the plaintiff in favour of Ajay Kumar Chaurasia qua the sale of said vehicle. Admittedly, the R.C. and insurance of the ve- hicle was also not transferred in the name of Ajay Kumar Chaura- sia. In absence of such crucial documents, the plea of transfer of ownership remains wholly unsubstantiated. Thus, no lawful trans- fer of the vehicle had taken place in favour of Ajay Kumar Chaurasia.
25. The reliance placed by the defendant on the principle of insurable interest and the provisions of GR-17 of the Indian Motor Tariff is also misplaced. The said provision contemplates transfer of insurance upon transfer of ownership subject to compliance with certain formalities. However, in the present case, the defendant has failed to establish that any valid transfer of ownership ever took place. In absence of such transfer, the question of applying GR-17 to deny the claim of the plaintiff, does not arise. Rather, the non-compliance of the said provision reinforces the conclusion that the insurance contract continued to subsist in favour of the plaintiff.
CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.1526. The judgments relied upon by the defendant are clearly distinguishable on facts. In those cases, the transfer of the vehicle was either admitted or proved through cogent evidence, whereas in the present case the alleged sale itself remains unproved. Moreover, in those cases the claim was sought to be made by the transferee without transfer of policy, whereas in the present case the claim is by the original insured in whose name the policy continues to stand.
27.The reliance placed by the defendant on National Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Ram Prasad Chowdhury (RP No. 437/2016) is clearly misplaced and distinguishable on facts. In the said case, the complainant had himself admitted execution of a power of attorney in favour of the purchaser, which unequivocally recorded transfer of ownership and receipt of consideration. Thus, the transfer was admitted, documented, and undisputed. In stark contrast, in the present case, the plaintiff has consistently denied the execution of the alleged affidavit (Ex. PW-1/DX-1), denied any sale transaction, and specifically denied receipt of any consideration. The plaintiff has maintained throughout that the vehicle was merely handed over to Ajay Kumar Chaurasia for commercial use. Therefore, the factual foundation in Ram Prasad Chowdhury (Supra), is fundamentally different and cannot be applied to the present case.
CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.1628.It is further noteworthy that even in the said judgment and similar precedents, the courts have emphasized that a completed and duly proved sale is a precondition for denying an insurance claim on the ground of lack of insurable interest. In the present case, however, the alleged sale is not only disputed but is sought to be established merely through an unproved document, i.e., a photocopy of an affidavit of plaintiff, without any supporting evidence. The defendant has thus failed to discharge its burden, and cannot avoid liability under the policy on the basis of such unverified and inadmissible material.
29.The entire defence of the defendant also hinges upon the alleged role and statement of one Ajay Kumar Chaurasia, who is claimed to be the purchaser of the vehicle. However, despite being the most material witness, the defendant has chosen not to examine him before this Court. The statement attributed to him, recorded by a private investigator, cannot be treated as substantive evidence in the absence of his and private investigator's examination and opportunity for the cross-examination. The non-examination of such crucial witnesses, who were clearly within the knowledge and reach of the defendant, attracts an adverse inference.
30. In view of the aforesaid detailed analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the defendant has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it to prove that the plaintiff had sold the vehicle prior to the date of theft or that he had ceased to be the owner CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.17 thereof. The plaintiff continued to be the registered owner as well as the insured under the policy on the date of loss and, therefore, possessed valid insurable interest in the vehicle.
31.In view of the above, issue no.4 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 1"Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount i.e. Rs. 9,00,000/-, as claimed by the plaintiff? OPP"
32. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. In order to discharge the said onus, the plaintiff has stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and has reiterated the contents of the plaint on material points on oath. The plaintiff has proved on record the copy of RC of the vehicle in question, the insurance policy, FIR, untraced report, claim form, legal notice and other connected documents. The fact that the vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1LAB-1545 was insured with the defendant company for the relevant period and that the insurance policy was valid on the date of theft, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the said vehicle was stolen on 11.06.2023 and that an FIR bearing no. 0230/2023 under Section 379 IPC was registered and thereafter an untraced report was filed and accepted by the competent court. Thus, the foundational facts giving rise to the claim of plaintiff stand duly established.
CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.1833. The principal defence raised by the defendant to resist the claim is that the plaintiff had no insurable interest in the vehicle on the date of theft as he had allegedly sold the same to one Ajay Kumar Chaurasia on 30.11.2020. However, as already discussed while deciding Issue No. 4, the defendant has failed to prove the alleged sale in accordance with law. The purported affidavit of Ajay Kumar Chaurasia relied upon by the defendant, has not been duly proved, the alleged purchaser has not been examined, and the investigation report as well as statement attributed to Ajay Kumar Chaurasia remain unproved and inadmissible. In absence of proof of transfer, the plaintiff continues to be the registered owner of the vehicle.
34. It is a matter of record that the vehicle continued to be registered in the name of the plaintiff and the insurance policy also stood in his name on the date of theft. The witness of the defendant, DW-1, has also admitted in her cross-examination that as per the insurance policy the plaintiff was the registered owner of the vehicle at the relevant time and that the claim form is to be filed by the insured, i.e., the registered owner. These admissions are significant and clearly establish that the contractual relationship of insurer and insured subsisted between the parties on the date of loss.
35. The contention of the defendant that the insurance premium and EMIs were being paid by Ajay Kumar Chaurasia does not CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.19 advance its case. Such purported payments although not duly proved and even if assumed to be correct, do not divest the plaintiff of his ownership nor do they extinguish his insurable interest in absence of a valid transfer recognized by law. The explanation furnished by the plaintiff that the vehicle was given to Ajay Kumar Chaurasia for commercial use on monthly basis due to lack of work during the COVID-19 period appears to be plausible and has not been effectively discredited in cross- examination. No documentary or independent evidence has been brought by the defendant to conclusively establish that the transaction was one of sale rather than a permissive arrangement.
36. The defendant has also sought to rely upon the circumstance that the FIR was lodged and initial intimation was given by Ajay Kumar Chaurasia. However, this by itself does not lead to the conclusion that Ajay Kumar Chaurasia was the owner of the vehicle on the date of theft. A person in possession or in control of the vehicle at the relevant time can very well inform the police or insurer about the theft. Such acts are consistent with possession on the date of theft but not determinative of ownership. Moreover, it has come on record that the plaintiff subsequently lodged his claim with the defendant by submitting the requisite documents, which were admittedly received by the defendant.
37. Another aspect which assumes importance is that the defendant has admitted that no repudiation letter was ever issued to the CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.20 plaintiff and that the communication of repudiation was sent only to Ajay Kumar Chaurasia. This conduct of the defendant itself shows that the claim of the plaintiff was not adjudicated in accordance with law. Once the policy stood in the name of the plaintiff, the defendant was under an obligation to consider and decide the claim of the plaintiff. Failure to do so and reliance on an unproved transaction of sale, renders the repudiation arbitrary and unsustainable.
38. The judgments relied upon by the defendant do not come to its aid. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Prasad Chowdhury relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the defendant, the transfer of the vehicle was clearly established by cogent evidence and was not in dispute, whereas in the present case the alleged sale itself has not been proved. Similarly, in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shaik Dawood, the claim was made by a transferee who had not obtained transfer of the insurance policy, whereas in the present case the claim is by the original insured in whose name the policy continues to subsist. The reliance on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla, is also misplaced as there is no unequivocal admission by the plaintiff regarding sale of the vehicle and the documents relied upon by the defendant have not been proved in accordance with law. Thus, all the said judgments are clearly distinguishable on facts and do not advance the case of the defendant.
CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.2139. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has successfully established that he was the registered owner and insured of the vehicle on the date of theft, that the theft occurred during the validity of the policy, and that the defendant has failed to establish any valid ground for repudiation of the claim of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to indemnification under the policy.
40. Therefore, Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, and the plaintiff is held entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- (total sum insured) of the stolen vehicle from the defendant.
ISSUE NO.2 "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any pendente lite or future interest @ 18% per annum? OPP"
41.The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
42.As regards interest, The plaintiff has claimed interest @ 18% per annum on the sum insured amount, along with pendente lite and future interest at the same rate. However, the said interest rate seems excessive and exorbitant.
43.In Cimmco Limited v. Pramod Krishna Agrawal, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7289, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as follows;
"3..........Hon'ble Supreme Court has now CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.22 mandated that lower rates of interest be granted and therefore the pre-suit and also the pendente lite and future interest is liable to be reduced by this Court. Reliance is placed upon the judgments in the cases of 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)."
44.In the given facts and circumstances and also in view of the aforesaid judgment, the plaintiff is entitled to simple interest @ 9% per annum on the sum insured amount of Rs. 9,00,000/-from date of claim of the plaintiff i.e, 05-04-2024 till actual realization.
45.Accordingly, issue no.2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 3 CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.233. "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- per month from the date of incident of theft till realization, as claimed by the plaintiff? OPP"
46. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
47. The plaintiff has claimed that he was earning approximately Rs.
50,000/- per month from the said vehicle and, therefore, seeks damages on account of loss of income. However, the plaintiff has not placed on record any documentary evidence such as account statements, contracts, invoices, or income records to substantiate the alleged income.
48. In his cross-examination as well, no material particulars or supporting evidence have been brought forth to establish the exact nature or quantum of income derived from the vehicle. The claim thus remains a bare assertion without proof. It is settled law that damages cannot be granted on the basis of conjectures or assumptions and must be supported by credible evidence.
49. In absence of any reliable proof regarding the alleged income or loss thereof, this Court is not inclined to grant the claimed damages. Accordingly, Issue No. 3 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.ISSUE NO. 5
"Whether the plaintiff has concealed/suppressed the material facts and manufactured false documents? If so, its effect? OPD"CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.24
50. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant.
51. The defendant has alleged that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts and has set up a false case by denying the sale of the vehicle. However, except for making bald and general allegations, the defendant has failed to place any cogent or reliable evidence on record to substantiate the same. The entire allegation of concealment is founded upon the plea that the vehicle had already been sold to Ajay Kumar Chaurasia, which plea has already been examined in detail while deciding Issue No. 4 and has been found to be unproved.
52. The purported affidavit of sale relied upon by the defendant has not been proved in accordance with law, the alleged purchaser has not been examined, and the investigation report as well as the statement attributed to Ajay Kumar Chaurasia have been held to be inadmissible and unreliable. In such circumstances, the allegation that the plaintiff has concealed material facts or manufactured false documents, cannot be sustained. There is no independent evidence on record to show that the plaintiff has fabricated any document or has deliberately suppressed any material fact from this Court.
53. On the contrary, the plaintiff has placed on record all relevant documents including the registration certificate, insurance policy, FIR, untraced report, and correspondence with the defendant, which have not been disputed. Mere denial of the defendant's CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.25 version cannot be construed as concealment or fraud. Accordingly, the defendant has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it, and Issue No. 5 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 66. "Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD"
54. The onus to prove this issue was also upon the defendant.
55. The objection of the defendant regarding maintainability of the suit is primarily based on the plea that the plaintiff had no insurable interest in the vehicle on the date of theft and that there was no privity of contract between the parties. However, in view of the findings already returned under Issue No. 4, it stands conclusively established that the plaintiff continued to be the registered owner of the vehicle and the insured under the policy on the date of loss.
56. It is an admitted position that the insurance policy was issued in the name of the plaintiff and was valid for the relevant period. The relationship of insurer and insured between the parties is thus not in dispute. The occurrence of theft during the currency of the policy is also not denied. In such circumstances, the plaintiff clearly has the locus standi to institute the present suit and seek indemnification under the policy.CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.26
57. The contention of the defendant that the claim was initially lodged by Ajay Kumar Chaurasia, does not render the suit non- maintainable. Even as per the testimony of DW-1, the claim form is required to be filed by the insured, i.e., the registered owner. The fact that the plaintiff subsequently lodged his claim with the defendant along with all requisite documents, is borne out from the record and has not been disputed. The failure of the defendant to consider the claim of the plaintiff on merits and to communicate any decision to him further weakens its objection regarding maintainability.
58. The suit has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation and no legal bar to its maintainability has been shown. Accordingly, the defendant has failed to establish that the suit is not maintainable. Accordingly, issue no. 6 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
RELIEF
59.In view of the findings returned on Issue Nos. 1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs only). The plaintiff shall also be entitled to simple interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount from 05-04-2024 (date of the claim of the plaintiff) till actual realization.
60.Plaintiff is also awarded costs of the suit.CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.27
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room. Digitally
signed by
ASHUTOSH
ASHUTOSH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.04.21
16:36:37
+0530
(Announced in the open (Ashutosh Kumar)
Court) District Judge (Commercial Court)-1
West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
21-04-2026
CS (COMM.) No. 785/2024 Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.28