Delhi District Court
Aggarwal Industries vs The Oriental Insurance Company Limited on 17 April, 2026
IN THE COURT DR. PANKAJ SHARMA
DISTRICT JUDGE - 02/WAQF TRIBUNAL,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
DLND010011162014
Civil Suit No. 56994/2016
In the matter of :
Aggarwal Industries
3714, Katra Dhumimal,
Churiwalan, Chawri Bazaar,
Delhi-110006. ....Plaintiff
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Service Centre-1, 15 Hansalaya Building,
Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001. ....Defendant
Appearances:
Sh. S.B. Singh, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. Bhupesh Kumar Chandna, Ld. Counsel for defendant.
Date of institution of the suit : 07.10.2014
Final Arguments Heard on : 19.03.2026
Date of Judgment : 17.04.2026
CS No. 56994/2016 Digitally signed Page No. 1 of 26
Aggarwal Industries vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.17
15:55:47
+0530
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs.17,50,323/- alongwith pendente lite interest and cost.
2. Brief facts set out in the plaint are that:-
2.1 The Plaintiff is a partnership firm, duly registered with the Registrar of Firms in Delhi. Sh. Suresh Kumar Jain is one of the partners of the plaintiff firm. Defendant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The Defendant Company is engaged in the business of general insurance and carries a prominent position amongst insurance companies in the country.
2.2 The plaintiff firm is engaged in the business of trading in paper.
The plaintiff buys paper from various manufacturers situated at various places, and sells it to intending buyers in the city of Delhi. As an essential activity, the plaintiff keeps stock of its merchandise. The plaintiff as a matter of prudent trade practice has been insuring its goods against various risks associated with its acquisition and storage of paper. The Plaintiff has been insuring regularly its merchandise against the risks of fire and burglary.
2.3 It is stated that in pursuance to its requirements, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant to insure its stock in trade consisting of paper and paper products interalia against risks of burglary and CS No. 56994/2016 Page No. 2 of 26 Aggarwal Industries vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.17 15:55:50 +0530 housebreaking. The defendant issued to the complainant a document entitled "Burglary Floater Policy Schedule" bearing No 215400/48/2011/6568 dated 15.03.2012. The contract was valid for period of one year from 22.02.2012 until 21.02.2013.
2.4 It is stated that the insurance policy issued regarding the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and covered three godowns of the Plaintiff firm situated at following addresses:-
(a) 3714, Katra Dhoomi Mal, Choori Walan, Chawri Bazari, Delhi;
(b) 46/13, Khera Kalan, Delhi; and
(c) 25/26 Gali No 6 Master Mohalla, Libas Pur, Delhi.
The entire stock in the above locations was covered under one sum insured to the tune of Rs.5,50,00,000/-. The Plaintiff paid the insurance premium as required by the Defendant Company in consideration of the protection promised under contract of insurance.
2.5 It is stated that most unfortunately, a burglary occurred at the premises of the Plaintiff on its address situated at 46/13, Khera Kalan, Delhi. The premises were broken into on the night intervening between 14 th and 15th of March 2012, and stock of paper was stolen. The matter was immediately reported to police who registered an FIR under their reference No. 86 of 2012. The FIR was registered under Section 457 and 380 IPC against unknown persons. There were signs of forcible entry into the premises and of the material having been removed from the stock lying at the appointed Digitally CS No. 56994/2016 signed by Page No. 3 of 26 Aggarwal Industries vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.17 15:55:53 +0530 place.
2.6 The police authorities conducted investigation into the incident.
However, even after considerable efforts, the police could not locate either the culprits or the stolen goods. In due course of time, the police issued a untraced report followed by a closure report with the area Metropolitan Magistrate. The closure report of the police was accepted by the court and in light thereof further investigation into the matter was called off by the police.
2.7 It is stated that meanwhile, the Plaintiff had informed the Defendant company soon after the theft, lodging its claim with the Defendant Company for the value of the stolen goods. The Defendant Company appointed Sh.Sanjeev Soni, a surveyor, to conduct survey into the incident and to assess the loss. Sh. Sanjeev Soni visited the site of incident on 15 th March 2012 and subsequently. On the first visit itself, the surveyor conducted a physical verification of all stocks, and thence of stock at other locations covered under the policy. In addition to the physical verification, the surveyor also required of the Plaintiff to present to him various other documents including accounting record, income tax record, Bills and Cash memos for sale and purchase of the merchandise, final report of the police duly accepted by the court, and such other information. The Defendant also sought clarifications on various aspects which were duly provided by the Plaintiff.
CS No. 56994/2016 Digitally signedPage No. 4 of 26 Aggarwal Industries vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.17 15:55:55 +0530 2.8 It is stated that according to the physical verification conducted by the Plaintiff, 510 bundles of paper consisting of 32049.1 kgs of paper were stolen on the eventful night. The value to the Plaintiff of the said 510 bundles of paper came to Rs.13,67,440.88/- and the plaintiff submitted its valuation of the claim to the Defendant Company through its surveyor.
2.9 It is stated that after Plaintiff had provided all information and record to the Surveyor, including the final closures report of the police, the Plaintiff expected that its claim shall be processed and settled expeditiously, however, the Plaintiff had to remind several times and discovered that there was unexplained delay in settlement of the claim. Vide letter dated 11.10.2012, the Defendant Company for the first time informed the Plaintiff that its loss is not tenable under the policy of insurance on grounds that the claim form had not been submitted, and that books of accounts were not tallied with stock register. The letter was a rude shock to the Plaintiff. In reply the plaintiff informed the Defendant that claim form was absent since it was never required either by the surveyor or the Defendant Company. It further stated that it was keen to know how the surveyor reached on conclusion that the books of account did not tally with stock register. The Plaintiff visited the surveyor and provided to him all clarifications to his entire satisfaction. Vide another letter dated 22nd March 2013, the Defendant Company once again intimated that it has rejected the claim on the advice of the surveyor who according to Defendant had considered claim on both methods i.e., as per trading method and Bank stock method.
CS No. 56994/2016 Page No. 5 of 26 Aggarwal Industries vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.17 15:55:57 +0530 2.10 It is stated that the rejection of the claim by the Defendant is illegal, contrary to terms of the contract, and based on perverse and self serving interpretation of facts and figures related to the claim. The exercise carried out by the surveyor was patently illogical, and incorrect. The conclusions of the surveyor are based on illegal premise, and therefore not sustainable in law. The surveyor was for the large part acting in the sole interest of the Defendant Company and contrary to its code of conduct. The Defendant Company's rejection of claim based on the recommendation of the surveyor was a self serving decision, which was contrary to contract of insurance and patently illegal.
2.11 The Plaintiff is a law abiding firm of traders and religiously keeps its books of accounts as required in law. The Plaintiff is registered with the Taxation authorities and regularly files its returns for tax. The Plaintiff is a dealer of leading manufacturers of paper and enjoys tremendous goodwill amongst other traders and government agencies.
2.12 Aggrieved by the conduct of the Defendant company, the Plaintiff company filed a consumer complaint in the Consumer Court at Shalimar Bagh, against wrongful rejection of the claim. The defendant company entered appearance and filed its reply. In its reply, it raised the plea that the matter involves complex issues for decision and therefore, only civil courts are competent to adjudicate the same. In view of the plea raised by the CS No. 56994/2016 Page No. 6 of 26 Digitally Aggarwal Industries vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.17 15:55:59 +0530 Defendant Company, the Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the Consumer Court with liberty to file the same in civil court.
2.13 It is stated that the Plaintiff suffered loss of Rs.13,67,440/-
arising out of burglary of 510 bundles of paper from its premises on the night of 14.03.2012. The said loss of the Plaintiff was insured by the Defendant Company vide contract of insurance as aforementioned and therefore the Plaintiff was entitled to be indemnified by the Defendant Company. The defendant company has wrongfully rejected the claim of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff is now legally entitled to interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs.13,67,440/- @ 12% per annum as from two months after the intimation of the claim, and Rs.3,82,883/- towards pre-suit interest @ 12% p.a. as from two months after the occurrence of the claim. Hence, the present suit.
2.14 It is stated that the cause of action against the defendant in this case arose for the first time on 14.03.2012, when the incident resulting in theft of material took place. It then arose various dates when the exercise in connection with survey and assessment of the loss was carried out by the surveyor on behalf of the Defendant. It finally arose on 22.03.2013 when the Defendant Company wrongfully and illegally rejected the claim of the Plaintiff under subject contract of insurance.
3. In written statement filed by the defendant, the defendant has CS No. 56994/2016 Page No. 7 of 26 Aggarwal Industries vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.17 15:56:01 +0530 interalia averred that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as the same is neither drafted in accordance with law nor drafted in accordance with Hon'ble Delhi High Court Rules and the same is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. It is submitted that the Suit of the Plaintiff is also not maintainable as the same has not disclosed any specific cause of action and also Suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Order VII rule 11 of CPC. It is stated that the Suit of the Plaintiff is also not maintainable as the Plaintiff has not came to this Court with clean hands and deliberately concealed the true and material facts before this Court. It is stated that the competent authority of the company after going through the records/documents as received alongwith the report of the surveyor and close scrutiny of the account books/documents as submitted by the plaintiff in support of their claim viz-a-viz the terms & conditions of the policy and after applying its mind in the given facts and circumstances, repudiated the claim and informed the said facts to the plaintiff vide letter having reference claim no. 210011/48/2012/030397 dated 11.10.2012, 02.11.2012, and letter ref. claim no. 210011/48/2013/030098 dated 22.03.2013, as admitted by the plaintiff also. As such in the given circumstances and facts the claim of the plaintiff was 'repudiated as no loss has been proved, since, the stock leftover after the alleged loss was found more than the stock as trading account per their account books e.g. method/bank stock method'. It is stated that the Suit of the Plaintiff is also not maintainable as the same is violation of Specific Relief Act, Law of Limitation Act, Law of Court Fee, Law of Evidence Act and Law of Contract Act, etc., even prima facie the suit of the plaintiff is not CS No. 56994/2016 Page No. 8 of 26 Aggarwal Industries vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.17 15:56:04 +0530 maintainable in the eyes of law. It is stated that the plaintiff is also guilty for the offence of perjury as they should have dared to tell bundle of lies. It is stated that the plaintiff is totally unable to show prima facie that the claim of the plaintiff was wrongly repudiated by the defendant, hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any claim alongwith damages against the alleged loss/theft from the defendant and under the terms, conditions and exclusions of the policy, the claim of the plaintiff is not tenable at all and the plaint of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. It is stated that the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause and as such is liable to be dismissed. No cause of action ever arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant to file against the present suit against the defendant. It is stated that the plaintiff has not cooperated in process of their claim by not furnishing requisite information and documents to the surveyor as well as the defendant in time during the entire claim. It is stated that the plaintiff did not disclose the actual/proper facts of the case rather willfully twisted the facts of the case in such a manner, so, as to give color of wrongful rejection of their claim, as such, the present case is liable to be dismissed for willful suppression of material facts. It is stated that the present plaint is not maintainable as this territorial jurisdiction to Court has adjudicated it. Since, the policy in question was issued by the division office i.e. DO-9, having its office at Sunlight Insurance Building, 1/28, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. Hence, the present plaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost due to lack of jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. In the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. V/s GOPAL GUPTA & ANR. [2013 (3) CS No. 56994/2016 Page No. 9 of 26 Aggarwal Industries vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.17 15:56:06 +0530 CPR 690 (NC)), it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission as follows:
".....the insurance policies were also taken at the Kaithal and the claim was lodged and repudiated Kaithal. Respondent No. 1, which is a branch of Respondent/Insurance Company, has nothing to do with the issuance of insurance policy or repudiation of the claim and had only been impleaded as a party by the complainant to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission UT Chandigarh".
This issue is also squarely covered by a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "SONIC SURGICAL VS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. [2010 (1) SCC135]".
The allegations made in the plaint are denied in toto by the defendants.
4. In replication filed by the plaintiff, the plea taken in the written statement are denied and averment made in the plaint are reasserted.
5. Thereafter, on the basis of pleadings, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit?OPP
2. Whether this suit is without cause of action?OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed?
OPP
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the interest over the suit amount, if so, CS No. 56994/2016 Digitally Page No. 10 of 26 Aggarwal Industries vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.17 15:56:08 +0530 at what rate and for what period?OPP
5. Relief.
6. In order to prove its case, plaintiff examined three witnesses.
PW-1 Sh. Nitin Jain S/o Sh. D.S. Jain aged about 32 years employed as Accountant with M/s. Aggarwal Industries, Katra Dhumimal, Churiwalan, Delhi-110006, tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A. He supported the contents of plaint and relied on the documents Ex.PW1/1, Ex.PW1/2 (OSR), Ex.PW1/3 (colly) (OSR), Ex.PW1/4 (colly), Ex.PW1/5, Ex. PW1/7, Ex.PW 1/8, Ex.PW1/9 (colly), ExPW1/10 (colly), Ex.PW1/11 (colly), Ex.PW1/12 (colly). Ex.PW1/13 (colly), Ex. PW1/14 (colly), Ex.PW1/16, Ex.PW1/17 (colly). Ex.PW1/19, Ex.PW1/20, Ex.PW1/21 (colly), Ex.PW1/22, Ex.PW1/23, Ex.PW1/24, Ex.PW1/25, Ex.PW1/26, Ex.PW1/27, Ex.PW1/28, Ex.PW1/29, Ex. PW1/30, Ex.PW1/31, Ex. PW1/32, Ex. PW1/33, Ex. PW1/34 Ex.PW1/35, Ex. PW1/36, Mark A, Mark B, Mark C (colly), Mark D (colly), Mark E, Mark F. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he cannot produce any record with respect to his appointment as an accountant with the plaintiff firm. He volunteered that his authority letter i.e Ex. PW1/1 is already on record. He affirmed that Ex. PW1/1 does not bear his signatures and the same is also not on the letter head of the firm. He also affirmed that the authority letter Ex. PW1/1 does not bear the seal of the partner of the plaintiff firm. He denied the suggestion that he is not an authorized person to depose as the witness before this Court. He deposed that he has gone through CS No. 56994/2016 Page No. 11 of 26 Aggarwal Industries vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.17 15:56:10 +0530 the contents of the affidavit in evidence Ex. PW1/A and it is duly signed by him. He deposed that he is working with the plaintiff firm for the last eight years. He deposed that he did not remember when the plaintiff firm got registered. He volunteered that Certificate of Registration is already on record as Ex. PW1/2 and the details of the partners are mentioned. He deposed that he has no knowledge that the second partner namely Smt.Sudesh Jain has authorized to Sh. Suresh Kumar Jain for day-to-day affairs of the plaintiff firm. He affirmed that no such authority letter issued by Smt. Sudesh Jain in favour of Sh. Suresh Kumar Jain has been placed on record. He deposed that the partners of the plaintiff firm having no independent business separately except this partnership business. He deposed that Sh. R.K. Jain is also engaged in the business of paper trading separately who is elder brother of Sh. Suresh Kumar Jain and husband of Smt. Sudesh Jain. He deposed that he (Suresh Kumar) is doing his business in Chawdi Bazar. He deposed that he did not remember the address of the same. He affirmed that they maintained the books of accounts and the same were audited by the CA of the plaintiff firm. Accordingly, the trading profit and loss and balance sheet were also audited by their CA and the same were submitted to the taxation authority. He denied the suggestion that the document Ex. PW1/3 i.e the partnership deed is registered with the Registrar concerned or notarized / attested by any notary public. He affirmed that the joint inspection report from the page no. 25 to 27 are joint physical verification report pertaining to the left over stock after the alleged incident of theft in the premises of the plaintiff, which has been carried out in the CS No. 56994/2016 Digitally Page No. 12 of 26 Aggarwal Industries vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.17 15:56:13 +0530 presence of Insurance Surveyor and Chowkidar Sh. Rampal. He affirmed that no one was present on behalf of the partners of the Aggarwal Industries and he was also not present there. He deposed that on the day of incident of the theft, he alone visited the premises and he found that Sh. Rajkumar Jain and Chowkidar were also present there. He deposed that Sh. R.K. Jain is business manager in the Aggarwal Industries. He volunteered that since he is the husband of Smt. Sudesh Jain, partner of the Aggarwal Industries. He affirmed that there is no such document issued or executed, and therefore not placed on court record alongwith plaint or with the affidavit in evidence in favour of Sh. R.K. Jain to show that Sh. R.K. Jain was deputed / employed as business manager in the plaintiff firm. He denied the suggestion that the goods pertained to alleged loss was not belonging to the plaintiff firm. He denied the suggestion that the goods pertained to alleged loss was in ownership of Sh. R.K. Jain in his individual capacity. He affirmed that the FIR Mark A was registered by Sh. Rajkumar Jain S/o Late Sh. Basant Kumar Jain. He affirmed that the untraced report/ final report u/s 173 Cr.PC has been issued in favour of complainant Sh. Rajkumar Jain by the police officials concerned, which is Mark B. He deposed that he alongwith Sh.Rajkumar Jain and Chowkidar jointly checked and counted the goods left in the premises in question after the alleged theft on 15.03.2012 and no police official was available at the time of counting of the left over stock in the godown. He affirmed that the intimation about the alleged loss was given to the concerned police station by Sh. R.K. Jain after completing the counting of the left over stock, after alleged theft. He deposed that he cannot CS No. 56994/2016 Page No. 13 of 26 Aggarwal Industries vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.17 15:56:15 +0530 tell the exact time of intimation but the same was conveyed to the police on the same day i.e. 15.03.2012 by Sh. Rajkumar Jain. He deposed that no register was ever maintained in the alleged godown for the inward and outward of the goods from that place. He volunteered that stock register was maintained. He deposed that the witness has shown the judicial record and he failed to point out any such document pertaining to the stock outward and inward entry register or any stock register. He denied the suggestion that no alleged theft had ever been took place that is why the plaintiff has not produced the above stock outward and inward entry register or any stock register. He deposed that the premises of the godown has been taken by the plaintiff on rental basis from Smt. Indra Jain. He affirmed that no rent agreement has been placed on record. He affirmed that the premises of godown has been disclosed in Sale Tax Department/DVAT. He deposed that he used to maintain the accounts books of Aggarwal Industries. He deposed that he is B. Com graduate. He affirmed that he has not done any specialized course in accounting. He deposed that on 15.03.2012, remaining stock was evaluated by him as well as by Sh. Raj Kumar Jain after receiving theft intimation. He deposed that that valuation of stock which was stolen was sent to the concerned Police Station for lodging FIR. He deposed that the estimate of stolen goods as well as left over stock was submitted to the defendant on the basis of valuation done on 15.03.2012. He deposed that the goods which were lying in the godown in question was hypothecated with Karnataka Bank, Shalimar Bagh. He deposed that he did not remember whether the above bank was intimated about the alleged theft by the plaintiff.
CS No. 56994/2016 Page No. 14 of 26 Aggarwal Industries vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.17 15:56:18 +0530 He denied the suggestion that the above bank was not intimated as there was no theft ever took place in the alleged godown of the Aggarwal Industries. He affirmed that police was not intimated about the theft of 510 bundles. He volunteered that it was mentioned that around 500 bundles were stolen. He affirmed that exact quantity after evaluation was not communicated to the police in writing. He denied the suggestion that their stock records were not correlating and thus stock was not tallying at any point of time. He deposed that he was present along with one Sh. Hari Nath at the time of survey of the loss by the surveyor S. Soni & Company. He deposed that he has produced all the records pertaining to the stocks available at the time of survey by the surveyor. He denied the suggestion that the surveyor has given correct report on the basis of physical verification of stocks as well as after going through the records provided by him. He denied the suggestion that plaintiff had not provided reliable evidence either to the surveyor or to the defendant to substantiate the alleged loss. He denied the suggestion that due to the aforesaid reasons, the claim of the plaintiff does not fall with the purview of the policy. He affirmed that no Chowkidar/guard had been deployed in the night on the day of occurrence. He denied the suggestion that there was negligence on the part of the plaintiff for not placing the guard. He denied the suggestion that the accounting records as produced in the case file are manipulated one just to false claim. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff is entitled to get amount of no claim. He denied the suggestion that the defendant has correctly repudiated on the basis of recommendation of surveyor as per report submitted. He denied the suggestion that he is CS No. 56994/2016 Page No. 15 of 26 Aggarwal Industries vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.17 15:56:20 +0530 deposing falsely at the instance of plaintiff being employee of the plaintiff company.
6.1 PW 2 : Sh. R.A. Rohilla, Senior Accountant, Hindustan Paper Corporation Limited, Scope Minar, 4th Floor, District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi stated in his examination-in-chief that he has been authorised by Manager Sales of their company to appear in this case and to depose before the Court. Copy of his identity card is ExC-1. He has seen the credit notes No. 584, 599 and 600 all dated 31.03.2012, Mark E (Colly.) and deposed that he identified the same and same were issued by their company and the same are then Ex.PW2/1, Ex.PW2/2 and Ex.PW2/3.
In his cross-examination, he deposed that he identified the signatures of Sh. Amit Roy, Assistant Manager Finance and Assistant Manager Sh. J.K. Singh on the exhibited documents. He deposed that these two officials had issued credit advice/note. He deposed that he has no personal knowledge about the transaction of the goods. He deposed that he has no knowledge about the further transit of the goods by the plaintiff. he deposed that he is only concerned with the three documents which are exhibited in his examination in chief. He deposed that the original credit notes have already been issued to the plaintiff and they only retain copy of the notes. He denied the suggestion that there is no such transactions with our company with the plaintiff to the suit.
6.2 PW3: HC Virender Singh, No. 2229/RD, PS Samaypur Badli,
CS No. 56994/2016 Digitally Page No. 16 of 26
signed by
Aggarwal Industries vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.17
15:56:22
+0530
Delhi stated in his examination-in-chief that he has brought the summoned record i.e FIR bearing No. 86/2012 dated 16.03.2012 under Section 457/380 IPC Ex.PW3/1, untrace report dated 13.05.2012 Ex.PW3/2 and final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C ExPW3/3 (Colly.). As per their record, the aforesaid documents are true and correct.
In his cross-examination, he affirmed that he is not the investigation officer of this case. He deposed that he was never been a part of the investigation in the present case. He affirmed that Ex.PW3/2 does not bear the seal and stamp of the concerned SHO. He affirmed that final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C Ex. PW3/3 is lying in original with their record and the name of the Court is not mentioned on this document. He deposed that he can not tell in which court this document was ever presented.
6.3 No other witness was produced by the plaintiff and therefore, PE was closed on the submissions of plaintiff.
7. In defendant's evidence, defendant has examined three witnesses.
DW-1 Sh. Parveen Makhija, S/o. Late Sh. Prem Lal Makhija, aged 50 years, posted as Assistant Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office-09, 1/28, Sun Light Insurance Building, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
1. Authority Letter dated 16.02.2018 issued in favour of DW1 by the CS No. 56994/2016 Digitally signed Page No. 17 of 26 Aggarwal Industries vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.17 15:56:24 +0530 competent authority EX. DW1/1;
2. Burglary Floater Policy schedule alongwith its terms and conditions EX.DW1/2 (colly.).
In his cross-examination, he deposed that he has been working with the present division of the company since 2009. He deposed that he has handled underwriting work of all departments including fire. He deposed that he has not worked with Claim Cell, which is separately located. He deposed that he has never handled the subject claim file. He deposed that the authority letter has been given to him by the Divisional Head i.e. Sr. Divisional Manager. He deposed that their Sr. Divisional Manager is neither Director nor company secretary. He affirmed that defendant is a company incorporated under the Company's Act. He volunteered that it is wholly owned by the Govt. of India. He deposed that he has brought with him the power of attorney duly executed in favour of Sr. Divisional Manager, copy of which is EX. DW1/P1 (OSR). He denied the suggestion that he possess no valid authority to depose in the present court because EX. DW1/1 does not carry the name of person who affixed the same. He denied the suggestion that EX. DW1/P1 does not carry the signatures of the person who signed as Sr. Divisional Manager on EX. DW1/1. He denied the suggestion that authority given to attorney vide EX. DW1/P1 is not valid since there is no valid authority in favour of the authority given. He affirmed that page no. 3 to 6 of EX. DW1/2 are a printed documents called Burglary and Housebreaking Policy (business premises). He affirmed that same policy is issued to all customers who take Burglary Insurance for business premises.
CS No. 56994/2016 Page No. 18 of 26
Digitally
Aggarwal Industries vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.17
15:56:26
+0530
He denied that the policy taken by the plaintiff in this case was Burglary- Floater Policy and not Burglary and Housebreaking Policy (business premises), as indicated on page 1 of EX.DW1/2 and deposed that the policy issued to the plaintiff is Burglary only with floater (more than 1 location). He denied the suggestion that terms and conditions exhibited by him at page 3 to 6 of EX. DW1/2 are not the applicable terms and conditions. He denied the suggestion that he has concealed the real terms and conditions. He denied the suggestion that no terms and conditions were provided to the client at the time of insurance. He deposed that the claim in question was rejected after due deliberations at the department level on receipt of the report from surveyor. He affirmed that the claim was rejected after consideration of "Trading method" and "Bank Stock Method", as recommended by the surveyor. He deposed that he can not comment on the question that the surveyor had invented words "Trading method" and "Bank Stock Method", and there is no authoritative or academic backgrounds to these words. He denied the suggestion that the surveyor only created a false impression with these words to reject the claim of the plaintiff illegally. He denied the suggestion that the claim of the plaintiff has been wrongly rejected. He denied the suggestion that the report of the surveyor was mischievous and motivated and illegal in contents. He denied the suggestion that no attention was paid to the mistakes in the surveyor report at the level of defendant company. He denied the suggestion that plaintiff is entitled to entire amount as prayed, together with interest and cost.
CS No. 56994/2016 Page No. 19 of 26 Aggarwal Industries vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.17 15:56:31 +0530
7.1 DW2 : Sh. Dijo Mathew S/o Sh. K.A. Mathew, C/o S. Soni & Co., 1047/16, Hari Singh Nalwa Street, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW2/A and relied upon the following documents:
1. Authority letter Ex. DW2/1; and
2. Final Survey Report dated 12.09.2012 and 01.03.2013 Ex. DW2/2 (colly).
In his cross-examination, he deposed that he is a mechanical engineer. He deposed that he had gone for conducting the survey with Mr.Sanjeev Soni. He affirmed that in the report Ex. DW2/2 dated 12.09.2012, the loss has been assessed by three different methods. He denied that as per physical verification of the stock carried out by them, the loss was found to be Rs.13,03,260/-. He volunteered that because annexure I of their survey report clearly showing in many cases physical stock in excess to the stock reflected in the stock register. He denied the suggestion that his statement on this count is false or that there is no difference between the short stock found after the theft when compared with the stock register. He affirmed that they have used monthly bank stock statement method for computation of loss after theft. He affirmed that they have also used a method which they have called "loss as per trading account". He deposed that he can produce authority, reference book that loss assessment by "bank stock statement method" and "as per trading account" is valid method for assessment of losses in similar circumstances. He volunteered that for burglary claims.
CS No. 56994/2016 Digitally Page No. 20 of 26
Aggarwal Industries vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.17
15:56:33
+0530
7.2 However, the said witness passed away and thereafter, defendant
examined another witness i.e. DW-3 Sh. Tillottam Kumar.
DW-3 : Sh. Tillottam Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Kapil Deo Singh, C/o S. Soni & Co., 204, IInd Floor, Nilgiri Appartment, 9 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
1. Authority letter Ex. DW3/1;
2. Final Survey Report dated 12.09.2012 and 01.03.2013 Ex. DW3/2 (colly) (already exhibited as Ex. DW2/2).
In his cross-examination, he deposed that he has not signed on the survey report. He volunteered that the same has been signed by Sh.Sanjeev Soni, proprietor. He deposed that on physical verification of stock they found the remaining stock in quantity of 6,84,513.51/- after adjustment of sale and purchase of two days from the date of theft. He deposed that prior to the theft, the stock was in quantity of 10,30,226.20/- as per record and after deduction of quantity of theft, the remaining quantity was left 9,98,177.10/-, as per record. He deposed that as per annexure-I of Survey Report Ex. DW3/2 the stock quantity of 9,98,170.10/- was considered as safe stock on record of the plaintiff. He deposed that during their survey they noticed that the plaintiff was having various kind of GSM papers and after theft some were found in excess of their physical as well as inventory in record and some were found in less in physical as well as in inventory on record. He denied the suggestion that they have wrongly CS No. 56994/2016 Page No. 21 of 26 Aggarwal Industries vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.17 15:56:36 +0530 considered the maximum quantity of 11,30,182.20/- after theft on the basis of guess work. He affirmed that both the quantity was taken on higher side as per record and physical verification. He deposed that since, there were lot of variation that is why they took the maximum quantity of 11,30,182.20/- for the purpose of calculation of safe stock as there were 6,84,513.51/- of quantity of stock as per physical verification and 9,98,177.20/- of quantity of stock were shown in their record. He deposed that therefore, on the basis of above variations they calculated the safe stock of 11,30,182.20/- maximum in quantity. He deposed that as per survey report para 13.7 total value of the closing stock comes to Rs.3,99,64,611.00/- prior to theft, while considering the average rate of the product of Rs.38.79/- on the basis of quantity considered 10,30,226.20/-. He denied the suggestion that the value of the left over stock was supposed to calculate on the basis of 9,98,177.20/- of quantity as reflected in the record of the plaintiff. He deposed that the value of the left over stock comes to Rs.3,87,19,294/-(9,98,177.20 X 38.79). He denied the suggestion that the value of left over stock has wrongly been calculated to the tune of Rs. 4,47,40,978.33/- in para number 14.0 of final survey report. He denied the suggestion that the surveyor has wrongly concluded as no loss. He denied the suggestion that the surveyor has wrongly opined to the defendant to gloss the claim in question as no claim.
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
CS No. 56994/2016 Page No. 22 of 26 Digitally signed Aggarwal Industries vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date: SHARMA 2026.04.17 15:56:38 +0530 ISSUE-WISE FINDING 9. My issue-wise findings are as under: 9.1 ISSUE No. (I) Whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit?OPP
The defendant is having an office at Service Centre-1, 15 Hansalaya Building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001. Although in Ex.PW-1/4, the issue office name is DO-9, New Delhi having address :
Sunlight Insurance Building, 1/28, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi but the office of Barakhamba Road is subordinate office which lies within the jurisdiction of this Court as such this Court has jurisdiction to try the present suit. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
9.2 ISSUE No. (II) Whether this suit is without cause of action?OPD The plaint has shown a valid cause of action accrued in favour of the plaintiff as plaintiff was covered by the policy Ex. PW-1/4. The said policy was Burglary - floater policy issued on 15.03.2012 for a period of one year valid from 22.02.2012 until 21.02.2013. In the intervening night of 14th and 15th March of 2012, Burglary took place at 46/13, Khera Kalan, Delhi, the said godown was covered by the said policy, as such giving rise to a valid cause of action to the plaintiff to institute the present suit. The cause of action has been well elucidated and therefore, the plea that plaint is devoid of cause of action is dismissed. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the CS No. 56994/2016 Page No. 23 of 26 Aggarwal Industries vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.17 15:56:40 +0530 defendant.
9.3 ISSUE No. (III) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed?OPP In the evidence of PW-1 who is an Accountant with the plaintiff firm, it is forthcoming that the plaintiff firm maintains the books of account and same were audited by the CA of the plaintiff firm. The Trading Profit and Loss and Balance Sheets were also audited by the CA and same were submitted with the Taxation Authority. He admitted Joint Inspection Report of physical verification of the left over stock after the alleged incident of theft in the premises of the plaintiff in the presence of surveyor of the insurance company and chowkidar Sh. Rampal. He stated that none of the partners was present there at the time of said physical verification. On the day of theft, he visited the premises and found Sh. Raj Kumar Jain and Chowkidar there. Although he denied the suggestion that goods pertained to the theft was in ownership of Sh. R.K. Jain in his individual capacity, however, he affirmed that the FIR was registered by Sh. R.K. Jain and untraced report was issued by the police in his favour. He admitted that no register was ever maintained in the godown for inward and outward of the goods from that place, however, he volunteered that stock register was maintained but he failed to point out from the judicial record any document pertaining to stock outward and inward entry register or any stock register.
He admitted that exact quantity after evaluation was not communicated to the police in writing.
Digitally
CS No. 56994/2016 signed by Page No. 24 of 26
PANKAJ
Aggarwal Industries vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.17 15:56:43 +0530 DW-1 asserted that the policy issued to the plaintiff firm is for burglary only with floater (more than one location). The Insurance company i.e. defendant after due survey repudiated the claim of the plaintiff as no loss has been proved, since, the stock leftover after the alleged loss was found more than the stock as trading account as per their account books e.g. method/bank stock method. Admittedly, as per PW-1, the stock register was maintained but he failed to point out from the judicial record any document pertaining to stock outward and inward entry register or any stock register. It is noteworthy that the defendant company had to ascertain the actual loss of the goods after analyzing the stock register having outward and inward entries. As a matter of fact, the Insurance company provide financial compensation for stolen property, however, the policy holder must establish proof of possession of the property which was allegedly stolen. Upon physical verification after alleged incident of theft, the stolen stock could not be reconciled. Therefore, there is no evidence to substantiate that some stock/items were stolen. PW-1 also admitted that the exact quantity after evaluation was not communicated to the police in writing. In these circumstances and in the backdrop of untrace report, there is no cogent evidence to substantiate that theft of the stock to that extant had taken place. The physical verification of the stock of the plaintiff company showed that they had more stock than what was required to corroborate the theft of stolen items. Accordingly, defendant company is not liable to financially compensate for uncertain or unaccounted stolen goods. The Court is not excepted to substitute its assessment over the defendant company. Further, CS No. 56994/2016 Digitally Page No. 25 of 26 Aggarwal Industries vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.17 15:56:45 +0530 the plea on behalf of plaintiff that the mean or average compensation of the stolen goods may be granted but the same can not be granted as there is no evidence on record for the said relief. This issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
9.4 ISSUE No. (IV) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the interest over the suit amount, if so, at what rate and for what period?OPP Since the defendant company is held not obligated to the financially compensate the plaintiff firm for the alleged stolen goods.
Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
10. ISSUE No. (V) RELIEF : The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order for costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
11. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
Announced in the open Court SHARMA 2026.04.17
15:56:48
on 17.04.2026 +0530
(Dr. Pankaj Sharma)
District Judge-02 & Waqf Tribunal
New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi
CS No. 56994/2016 Page No. 26 of 26
Aggarwal Industries vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited