Delhi District Court
Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co Ltd vs Shri Krishna Traders on 5 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA :
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL)-06
TIS HAZARI COURTS, WEST: DELHI
CS (COMM) No. 821/2024
CNR No. DLWT010081052024
05.02.2026
1. M/s. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its AR Sh. Tanveer Ahmed,
Registered office at:-
21, Patullos Road,
Chennai-600002
Regional office at
Rider House, 1st Floor,
Plot No. 136, Sector-44,
Gurugram-122002
Haryana
Also at
Unit No. 801A, 8th Floor,
Devika Tower, Nehru Place,
New Delhi-110049
2. M/s. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director/AR
Reg. Office at:
B-19, Mayapuri Industrial Area,
Phase-I, New Delhi-110064
Also at:-
Brigade Magnum,
Tower A, 9th Floor,
Amruthahalli, Kodigehalli Post,
Bangalore-560092
Karnataka
....Plaintiffs
Vs.
Ms. Kavita Devi
Proprietor of M/s. Shri Krishna Traders,
CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -1-
Registered office at:-
H. No. 172, Ground Floor,
Gali No. 5, Block-B, Phase-2,
Prem Nagar, New Delhi-110041.
....Defendant.
Date of filing : 19.09.2024
Date of arguments : 02.02.2026
Date of judgment : 05.02.2026
COMMERCIAL SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 11,16,472/-
ALONGWITH INTEREST.
JUDGMENT:
1. Vide this judgment, I am deciding the suit for recovery of Rs. 11,16,472/- along with interest filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant.
2. The essential facts for disposal of the present suit are as that the plaintiff no. 1 is an Insurance company, duly incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at the above mentioned address. Sh. Prashant Pratap Singh, who is AR/Legal Manager of plaintiff no. 1 is duly authorized to sign, verify and file the present suit, having its registered office at 801A, 8th Floor, Devika Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110049 and Resider House, 1 st Floor, Plot No. 136, Sector-44, Gurugram-122002, Haryana. The plaintiff no. 2, who was the consignee of the suit consignment for valuable consideration and is insured with the plaintiff no. 1. It has authorized the plaintiff no. 1 by way of letter of Subrogation Cum Special Power of Attorney to file the suit and has authorized all his representative to take all necessary steps or to do all acts which are necessary for the recovery of the abovesaid amount.
CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -2-Sh. Prashant Pratap Singh, AR/ Legal Manager has signed, verified and instituted the present suit on behalf of plaintiff no. 2. It is mentioned that the defendant is a common carrier by the name and style of M/s. Shree Krishna Traders within the meaning of Carriage by Road Act, 2007. The defendant is carrying out business of goods carrier by road from one place to another for consideration. The plaintiff no. 2 booked a consignment of concentrate of Soft Drinks (Non Alcoholic Beverage) vide invoice no. F20000001504 dated 28.01.2021, for a sum of Rs. 3,13,64,305.60 vide C.N 419 dated 28.01.2021 with the defendant for the transportation from Pune, Maharashtra to Khurda, Orissa. The defendant provided the above service for the valuable consideration paid by the plaintiff no. 2. The defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages/shortage/loss of the consignment in question being a common carrier under the Carriage by Road Act, 2007. The consignment of plaintiff no. 2 was dispatched vide LR/CN No. 419 dated 28.01.2021 by Truck No. HR-55 AB-0778. The truck carrying the consignment was negligent and out of the total consignment, partial consignment was received in severe damaged condition. The loss/damage/ shortage occurred because of the negligence of the defendant/carrier and the same amounts to breach of duty on the part of defendant which has failed to deliver the consignment in safe condition at its destination. It is mentioned that a registered notice was sent on 06.05.2021 under Sec 10 of The Carrier Act/ Section 16 Carriage by Road Act, 2007, which was duly served by the plaintiff no. 2 on the defendant, whereby the defendant was called upon to pay the estimated loss caused to the plaintiff no. 2 to the tune of Rs. 10,64,000/- as the defendant was solely CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -3- responsible for the said loss. The defendant also acknowledged the loss caused to the plaintiff no. 2 to the tune of Rs. 10,64,000/- and issued the damage certificate no. 007 dated 28.05.2021. The defendant should have taken proper care for the safety of the consignment. It is mentioned that the defendant acted negligently and there is no dispute in respect of the fact that the consignment was completely damaged causing loss to the plaintiff no. 2. The defendant, its agents/employees were careless and negligent in handling the consignment in transit and did not take due and reasonable care as required from an experienced carrier. As a result of negligence, the consignment was partially and severely damages and 48 units of thumps up concentrate were found to be damaged. The defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff(s) to the tune of Rs. 11,16,472/- along with accrued pendentelite and future interest. The safe delivery of the consignment at its destination was the responsibility of the defendant/ its servants/ agents but in the present case no proper and reasonable care was taken and the goods in consignment were extensively damaged while the said consignment was under
the control and custody of the defendant/its servant/ agents. It is mentioned that the carriage of goods by road is covered by Carriage by Road Act, 2007 and the liability of the defendant would be governed by this Act. Section 12 deals with the provisions pertaining to the liability of common carrier for the loss/damage to the goods entrusted for carriage to them. As per Section 12 it shall not be necessary for the plaintiff(s) to prove that such loss or damage or non delivery was owing to the negligence or criminal act of the common carrier or any of its servants and agents. The principle is that the carrier is absolutely CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -4- liable for any loss or destruction of the goods. The carrier undertakes the liability of an insurer. The carries should either deliver the goods intact or pay compensation for loss or destruction. In India the common carrier is liable for the loss or damage of the goods just like an insurer. The plaintiff no. 2 being the insured of the plaintiff no. 1 vide policy No. ST20002968000102/ STC3160682000100 in the name of M/s. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Limited covering all transit risks from 01.05.2020 to 30.04.2021. The plaintiff no. 2 intimated the plaintiff no. 1 regarding the damage of the consignment. The plaintiff no. 1 appointed Surveyor namely S.K. Das & Associates for assessing the claim. The Surveyor submitted the Assessment Report dated 20.02.2021, thereby assessing a net adjusted loss to the tune of Rs. 11,17,313/-. Thereafter receiving the said Report, the plaintiff no. 1 scrutinized the claim as per its contractual obligations, settled the claim of the plaintiff no. 2 for an amount of Rs. 11,16,472/-. The plaintiff no. 1 made the payment of Rs. 11,16,472/- to the plaintiff no. 2 and discharge voucher dated 20.07.2021 was issued by the plaintiff no. 2 to plaintiff no. 1. It is mentioned that upon receipt of the compensation amount aforementioned, the plaintiff no. 2 had assigned, transferred, abandoned and subrogated all its rights, claims and beneficial interest of the subject matter insured, including the rights to recover and realized on its own name, the amount of compensation for and on behalf of plaintiff no. 2 from the defendant in favour of the plaintiff no. 1. The plaintiff no. 2 has also duly executed letter of subrogation cum special power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff no. 1. The plaintiff no. 1 now being the Subrogee and CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -5- assignee of all rights and claims, beneficial interest, title and remedy in respect of the subject matter and having suffered the loss ultimately entitled to recover the full amount from the defendant under its own right and in its own name. The plaintiff no. 1 has sent a demand legal notice on 29.06.2022 to the defendant. The plaintiff no. 2 being the consignee and owner of the subject matter in question is entitled to claim compensation for the loss from the defendant. In alternative, it is pleaded that both the plaintiff(s) jointly and severally having suffered the loss of the value of the damaged consignment are entitled to claim compensation of Rs. 11,16,472/-. The plaintiff(s) are also entitled to interest @ 18% per annum which is a commercial rate of interest. It is prayed by the plaintiffs to pass a decree of Rs. 11,16,472/- in favour of the plaintiff no. 1 or in favour of the plaintiff no. 2 or jointly in favour of plaintiffs no. 1 & 2. The plaintiffs have claimed interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization.
3. Defendant has filed written statement taking preliminary objections that there is no privity of contract and no cause of action has accrued in favour of plaintiff. Defendant has already performed his part of contract with the plaintiff no. 2. The contract has been performed to the satisfaction of the plaintiff no.
2. The present suit is bad in law and an abuse of process of law.
The plaintiff has concealed and suppressed material facts. It is mentioned that the defendant does not owe any money. There are no dues towards the defendant. There was never a commercial transaction between the plaintiff no. 1 and the defendant. The present suit is barred by limitation. This court has no territorial CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -6- jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. The plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit.
In reply on merits, it is denied that Sh. Prashant Pratap Singh is duly authorized/ empowered to sign and verify the present suit. It is admitted that the plaintiff no. 2 sent the consignment through the defendant to Orissa but it is denied for want to knowledge that the plaintiff no. 1 was the insurer. It is denied that the plaintiff no. 2 has authorized the plaintiff no. 1 to file the present suit. The plaintiffs never intimated the defendant about the said documents and defendant was never given opportunity to assail the contents of the documents. As per the defendant, the subrogation contract is clandestine document and does not apply to the defendant. It is mentioned that the defendant has performed her part of contract as per contract between plaintiff no. 2 and the defendant. It is denied that defendant undertook to transport the said consignment in safe condition from Pune, Maharashtra to Khurda, Orissa. It is mentioned that the documents itself mention that the consignment is being carried at owners' risk and the part of the insurance was kept vacant. As per the averments of the plaint, the cause of action had taken place in Orissa and not in Delhi. It is denied that defendant or any of its employee were negligent. It is denied that loss/damage occurred because of the negligence of the defendant and the same amounts to breach of duty on the part of the defendant. The plaintiff is making false averments with regard to the joint inspection report. It is denied that registered notice was sent on 06.05.2021 to the defendant. It is denied that defendant had acknowledged her liability to the loss cause to the plaintiff no. 2. It is denied that defendant acknowledged the loss CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -7- caused to the plaintiff no. 2 to the tune of Rs. 10,64,000/- and issued the damage certificate no. 007 dated 28.05.2021 for any claim or liability of the defendant. As per the defendant, she had taken all the proper care for the safety of the consignment and the partial loss to the consignment was not caused by her. It is denied that the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff to the tune of R s. 11,16,472/-. It is denied that the discharge voucher dated 20.07.2021 was issued by the plaintiff no. 2 to plaintiff no. 1 under intimation to the defendant. It is denied that plaintiff no. 2 has executed letter of subrogation cum special power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff no. 1. It is denied that plaintiff no. 1 has sent legal notice to the defendant on 29.06.2022. Dismissal of suit is prayed by the defendant.
4. The plaintiff no. 1 has filed replication to the written statement filed by the defendant and controverted the allegations made in the written statement and further reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were re-framed by this court on 02.02.2026, which are as under:-
(1) Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit ? (OPP) (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 11,16,472/-from the defendant ? (OPP) (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest on the amount of Rs. 11,16,472/-. If yes, for what rate and for what period ? (OPP) (4) Relief.CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -8-
6. In evidence plaintiff has examined Sh. Tanveer Ahmed, AR of the plaintiff as PW-1. This witness has filed affidavit on the lines of plaint. This witness has proved copy of letter of Subrogation cum Power of attorney as Ex. PW-1/B, copy of tax invoice issued by defendant to the plaintiff no. 2 as Ex. PW-1/C, copy of GR/CN issued by the defendant company as Ex. PW-1/D, copy of Joint Inspection Report of the damage as Ex. PW-1/E, the acknowledgment of the said damage/loss/short material received by the plaintiff no. 2 as Ex. PW-1/F, copy of claim notice u/s 16 Carriage by Road Act, 2007 Section 10 of the Carriers Act as Ex. PW-1/G, copy of certificate as Ex. PW-1/H, copy of the policy as Mark-A, copy of surveyor report as Ex. PW-1/J, copy of Discharge Voucher as Ex. PW-1/K, copy of legal notice as Ex. PW-1/L, copy of Non-starter report marked as Ex. PW-1/M, copy of Board Resolution in favour of Managing Director dated 28.05.2025 as Mark-B, copy of Power of attorney of Managing Director dated 28.05.2025 as Mark-C and copy of power of attorney of Authorised Representative dated 19.06.2025 as Ex. PW-1/P.
7. This witness is duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant. In cross examination, this witness has admitted that he had adopted the affidavit which was filed by earlier AR. This witness has stated that he has filed the affidavit u/s 63-B of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. This witness after seeing the file submits that he has not filed any affidavit u/s 63-B of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. This witness has admitted that earlier AR has signed the affidavit. This witness has admitted that he has CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -9- not filed Incorporation certificate of plaintiff no. 1 company and Form-32. This witness has stated that he is working with the plaintiff since the year, 2018. He has admitted that there was no agreement between the plaintiff no. 1 & 2 in the year, 2018 regarding Subrogation agreement. This witness has stated that he cannot tell when the plaintiff no. 2 had purchased the Marine policy from the plaintiff no. 1. He has voluntarily stated that policy was purchased at Gurgaon (Haryana). This witness has stated that he does not know if any documents was executed between plaintiff no. 1 and plaintiff no. 2 in Delhi. He has admitted that the plaintiff no. 2 has booked the goods for transportation from Pune to Khurda (Orissa). He has admitted that defendant had issued document Ex. PW-1/H on 28.05.2021. He has admitted that the document Ex. PW-1/G is dated 06.05.2021. This witness has admitted that he has not filed any undertaking of the defendant as mentioned in para no. 4 of the plaint. This witness has stated that he cannot recall when the joint inspection of goods were carried out and where the joint inspection was carried out.
8. Thereafter, PW-1 was again examined on the application of the plaintiff on 15.12.2025. This witness has proved additional affidavit in evidence as Ex. PW-1/B and certificate u/s 63 of BSA as Ex. PW-1/Q. During cross examination, this witness has admitted that he was cross examined on 04.08.2025. He has admitted that there is no mention of # (hash) value in Ex. PW-1/Q. CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -10-
9. On the other hand, defendant has examined Sh Narendra Kumar Mewa Lal Mishra S/o Sh Mewa Lal Vishwanath Mishra, who is Manager of defendant as DW-1. This witness has filed affidavit on the lines of written statement. This witness has proved photocopy of his I.D card issued by the defendant as Ex. DW1/1. This witness is duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. During cross examination, this witness has stated that he is working in the defendant's firm since the year 2018. This witness has stated that he is working as Manager in the defendant's firm and he looks after all the aspects related to transport of goods for the firm. This witness has stated that he has not placed on record any document except his I.D card to show that he has been authorized to depose on behalf of defendant's firm. This witness has stated that he was instructed by the Proprietor of the defendant's firm to depose on behalf of defendant. This witness has stated that he is not aware about the name of the Proprietor of the defendant's firm. This witness has stated that he is not aware that a claim has been made against the defendant firm. This witness has stated that he is aware that Coca Cola had placed consignment order with the defendant firm. He has admitted that the defendant firm has many other dealings with Coca Cola (plaintiff no.2). He has admitted that when an order is placed by any company for transport of goods with the defendant firm, an invoice is issued for the said order. This witness has stated that he cannot identify the signatures of Ms. Kavita Devi, Proprietor of defendant firm.
The document ExPW1/C (Tax Invoice) was put to the witness and witness after seeing the document submits that this is the similar invoice that Coca Cola used to issue. This witness CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -11- has admitted that document ExPW1/D consignment letter was issued by the defendant firm to plaintiff no. 2. This witness has stated that he is not aware if defendant has filed any document to show that goods were delivered in intact condition.
10. I have heard Ld. Counsel for parties at length and perused the record carefully.
11. At the very Outset, I may observe that the provisions of Section 2 (1) (c)(xviii) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are very clear which reads as under:-
(c) "commercial dispute" means a dispute arising out of-
(i) ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders such as those relating to mercantile documents, including enforcement and interpretation of such documents;
(ii) export or import of merchandise or services;
(iii) issues relating to admiralty and maritime law;
(iv) transactions relating to aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft equipments and helicopters, including sales, leasing and financing of the same;
(v) carriage of goods;
(vi) construction and infrastructure contracts, including tenders;
(vii) agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce.
(viii) franchising agreements;
(ix) distribution and licensing agreements;
(x) management and consultancy agreements;
(xi) joint venture agreement;
(xii) shareholders agreements;
(xiii) subscription and investment agreements pertaining to the services industry including outsourcing services and financial services;
(xiv) mercantile agency and mercantile usage;
(xv)partnership agreements;
(xvi) technology development agreements;CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -12-
(xvii) intellectual property rights relating to registered and unregistered trademarks, copyright, patent, design, domain names, geographical indications and semiconductor integrated circuits;
(xviii) agreement for sale of goods or provision of services;
(xix) exploitation of oil and gas reserves or other natural resources including electromagnetic spectrum; (xx) insurance and re-insurance;
(xxi) contracts of agency relating to any of the above; and (xxii) such other commercial disputes as may be notified by the Central Government.
12. The provisions of Section 2 (1) (c) (xviii) of Commercial Courts Act as above are very much clear. The Insurance and re- insurance specified value do come within the jurisdiction of Commercial Courts Act. The clause also includes the services and guarantee given for the same. The service or guarantee may be oral or written. Therefore, the facts which alleged in the plaint comes under the Commercial disputes.
13. Secondly, now the question arises whether this Court has the pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter which is dispute. In this regard, the provisions of Section 3 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provides that:
Section 3 : Constitution of Commercial Courts:
(1) The State Government, may after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute such number of Commercial Courts at District level, as it may deem necessary for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction and powers conferred on those Courts under this Act:
[Provided that with respect to the High Courts having ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State Government may, after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -13- constitute Commercial Courts at the District Judge level:
Provided further that with respect to a territory over which the High Courts have ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State Government may, by notification, specify such pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakh rupees and not more than the pecuniary jurisdiction exercisable by the District Courts, as it may consider necessary. ] 3[1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the State Government may, after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, specify such pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakh rupees or such higher value, for whole or part of the State, as it may consider necessary.]
14. Admittedly, the Commercial Court Act was amended on 03.05.2018 and by virtue of the amendment and by virtue of the notification, the pecuniary value of the Commercial Courts Act shall not be less than Rs. 3,00,000/-. In the present case, the claim amount which is shown in the plaint is of Rs. 11,16,472/-. So, commercial court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
15. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
16. Issue No. 1-Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit ? (OPP) The burden to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. To prove this issue the plaintiff has mentioned in paragraph no. 17 of the plaint that this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the matter as the defendant is having her office and working for gain CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -14- in Delhi. Section 20 CPC provides that suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises. It reads as under:-
20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.-- Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction
--
(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally works for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
Therefore, it is clear that a civil suit is to be instituted where the defendant reside or cause of action has arisen whether in whole or part.
17. The defendant has filed written statement along with affidavit. In the affidavit it is stated that Smt. Kavita Devi is proprietor of M/s Shree Krishna Traders and is a resident of H. No. 172, Ground floor, Gali no. 5, Block - B, Phase -2, Prem Nagar, New Delhi - 110041. DW-1 appeared before this Court and filed DW1/1 which is an employee ID card. This card also CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -15- states the address as H. No. 172, B- Block, phase -2, Prem nagar, New Delhi-110041. Thus, the defendant resides and doing business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff is able to prove this issue and this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
18. Issue No. 2-Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 11,16,472/- from the defendant ? (OPP) The burden to prove this issue is on the plaintiff no.1. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff no. 1 has argued that plaintiff no. 2 booked a consignment of soft drink concentrate, vide invoice number F20000001504 dated 28.01.2021 and consignment note number 419 dated 28.01.2021 with the defendant for carriage from Pune, Maharashtra to Khurda, Orissa. The consignment was transported in Truck no. HR-55-AB-0778 under the custody and exclusive control of the defendant. Upon delivery the consignment was found partially and severely damaged resulting in loss of 48 units. The defendant is therefore liable to pay the plaintiff no. 1 an amount of Rs. 11,16,472/-. It is also argued that even though actual loss has been caused to the plaintiff no. 2, the amount is liable to be recovered by plaintiff no. 1. Plaintiff no. 2 was insured by plaintiff no. 1 and plaintiff no. 2 has executed subrogation agreement with the plaintiff no. 1. Plaintiff no. 1 steps into the shoes of the insured to recover the loss from the defendant.
On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that there was no privity of contract between plaintiff no. 1 and the defendant. Plaintiff no. 2 never appeared before this CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -16- court to prove that consignment was damaged due to sole negligence of the defendant. The surveyor never appeared to prove the survey report and thus no reliance can be placed on the same. Document Ex- PW1/H and Ex- PW1/G are irreconcilable and contrary to the claim made in the plaint.
19. Firstly, I will deal with the contention of the defendant, whether plaintiff no. 1 could have filed the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff no. 2. Plaintiff no. 1 has filed marine cargo sales turn over policy assuring plaintiff no. 2 of damages and losses caused during transportation of cargo. This document is marked as MARK-A. Mark-A is digitally signed by Sh. Pushpendra Pratap Singh on behalf of plaintiff no. 1. On 15.02.2025 PW-1 led additional evidence and placed on record certificate under section 63 of BSA to prove insurance policy, extract of board meeting and power of attorney of the managing director. Plaintiff no. 1 has filed certificate under section 63 of BSA after marking the document, the same is liable to be reconsidered. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ram Kishan vs. Emaar MGF Construction Pvt. Ltd (2024 SCC OnLine Del 4443) has observed as under:-
17. In view of the settled law, the certificate under Section 65B IEA which as terms of general procedure should have been filed by the petitioner along with the Statement of Accounts at the time of filing of the suit. However, the non-filing of the certificate under Section 65B IEA at the relevant stage is a curable defect which could be removed CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -17- by allowing to place the said certificate subsequently on record.
Needless to say, the filing of the certificate under Section 65B IEA is a matter of procedure and by not allowing the same to be taken on record amounts to taking a hyper technical view which is against the settled preposition of law as cited above. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.07.2018 is set aside.
(emphasis supplied) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arun Panditrao Khotkor vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors. ([2020] 7 S.C.R. 180 has observed as under:-
57. Subject to the caveat laid down in paragraphs 50 and 54 above, the law laid down by these two High Courts has our concurrence. So long as the hearing in a trial is not yet over, the requisite certificate can be directed to be produced by the learned Judge at any stage, so that information contained in electronic record form can then be admitted, and relied upon in evidence.
Thus, plaintiff no. 1 is able to prove marine policy document MARK-A. PW-1, Sh. Tanveer Ahmed authorised representative of plaintiff no. 1 proved power of attorney of authorised representative Ex. PW1/P dated 19.06.2025. Ex. PW1/P which has been executed on judicial stamp paper and CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -18- bears the public notary stamp. As per this agreement managing director of plaintiff no. 1 company appointed PW-1 as authorised representative to do all acts on behalf of plaintiff no. 1. Clause 1, 3, 4, and 12 of this agreement states as under:-
"1. To appear for and prosecute and defend all actions and proceedings, to sign and verify all matters in judicial proceedings.
3. To sign, verify and file a complaint, claim, affidavit, petition, documents, written, or an application for amendment thereof.
4. To give evidence and produce documents.
12. Generally, to do all other lawful acts necessary for the conduct of the said case." as per this agreement."
Bare reading of the above mentioned clauses show that PW-1 has the authority to pursue the present suit. Plaintiff no. 1 has placed reliance on Union Bank of India versus Naresh Kumar and others (AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3) passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court where observations have been given in respect of suit filed on behalf of corporation. Relevant paragraph of this judgment is as under :-
It cannot be disputed that a company like the appellant can sue and be sued in its own name. Under Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure a pleading is required to be signed by the party and its pleader, if any. As a company is a juristic entity it is obvious that some person has to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company. Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -19- Procedure, therefore, provides that in a suit by against a corporation the Secretary or any Director or other Principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case might sign and verify on behalf of the company. Reading Order 6 Rule 14 together with Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure it would appear that even in the absence of any formal letter of authority or power of attorney having been executed a person referred to in Rule 1 of Order 29 can, by virtue of the office which he holds, sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the corporation. In addition thereto and de hors Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a company is a juristic entity, it can duly authorise any person to sign the plaint or the written statement on its behalf and this would be regarded as sufficient compliance with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A person may be expressly authorised to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company, for example by the Board of Directors passing a resolution to that effect or by a power of attorney being executed in favour of any individual. In absence thereof and in cases where pleadings have been signed by one of it's officers a Corporation can ratify the said action of it's officer in signing the pleadings. Such ratification can be express or implied. The Court can, on the basis of the evidence on record, and after taking all the circumstances of the case, specially with regard to the conduct of the trial, come to the conclusion that the corporation had ratified the act of signing of the pleading by it's officer.
From the reading of the above judgment, it is clear that even in absence of resolution passed by board of directors or power of attorney, the court has the power to examine whether the pleadings have been signed by an officer on behalf of Corporation on the basis of evidence. On the basis of Ex. PW1/P, CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -20- it can be concluded that PW-1 is duly authorised to pursue the present matter on behalf of plaintiff no. 1.
20. It is pertinent to note Section 79 of The Marine Insurance Act, 1963 which deals with the right of subrogation of the insurer. In simple terms, it explains what rights the insurer gets after paying the insured for a loss. It states that once the insurer has paid for a total loss (or a particular loss, to the extent paid), the insurer steps into the shoes of the insured and can exercise all rights and remedies that the insured had against third parties responsible for the loss. Section 79 of The Marine Insurance Act, 1963 states as under :-
79. Right of subrogation.--(1) Where the insurer pays for a total loss, either of the whole, or in the case of goods of any apportionable part, of the subject-matter insured, he thereupon becomes entitled to take over the interest of the assured in whatever may remain of the subject-matter so paid for, and he is thereby subrogated to all the rights and remedies of the assured in and in respect of that subject-matter as from the time of the casualty causing the loss.
(2) Subject to the foregoing provisions, where the insurer pays for a partial loss, he acquires no title to the subject-matter insured, or such part of it as may remain, but he is thereupon subrogated to all rights and remedies of the assured in and in respect of the subject-matter insured as from the time of the casualty causing the loss, in so far as the assured has been indemnified, according to this Act, by such payment for the loss.
CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -21-MARK-A shows that the policy bearing no.
ST20002968000102 is mentioned in agreement of subrogation cum special power of attorney Ex. PW1/B. This agreement has been executed between plaintiff no. 2 and plaintiff no 1. Whereby, plaintiff no. 2 had taken marine insurance policy from plaintiff no 1 for a period of 1 year starting from 01/05/2021 till 30/04/2021 for a total cover of Rs. 133,008,004,037/- and in view loss caused on 15/02/2021 plaintiff no. 1 compensated plaintiff with Rs. 11,16,472/- vide discharge voucher Ex. PW1/K dated 20.07.2021 as full and final settlement. Clause 4 of this subrogation agreement states that plaintiff no. 2 subrogates plaintiff no.1 with the same rights, title, interests and remedies as that of plaintiff no. 1. Clause 4 of this agreement is as under :-
4. That the Subrogor hereby subrogates to the Subrogee, the same rights, title, interests and remedies as the Subrogor has in consequence of or arising from loss/ damage to the aforesaid subject matter, and the Subrogor further hereby grants to the Subrogee full power and authority to take and use all lawful ways and means to recover the said loss/ damage from the aforesaid Service Provider or any other person representing the Service Provider.
(Emphasis Supplied) This document is duly signed and bears the stamp of plaintiff no. 1 and 2. This document is duly executed on e-stamp paper and stamped by notary public on each page.
CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -22-21. Plaintiff no. 1 has placed reliance on National Insurance Co. Ltd and ANR vs. Mukesh Tempo Service [2010:DHC:5647] passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court wherein the consignor was not examined still the suit was decreed. I have carefully read this judgement. Hon'ble High Court framed issue " (ii) Whether the purported subrogation by the plaintiff no. 2 in favour of plaintiff no. 1 is a valid and legally enforceable subrogation ? (OPP) ". This issue has been decided in paragraphs 12 - 20 of the judgment. Relevant portion of this judgment is reproduced as under :-
12. Issues No.2 and 5 These issues are inter-connected and can be conveniently decided together. "Exhibits PW-1/6 and PW- 1/7" are the Letters of Subrogation purporting to be executed by plaintiff No.2, Calcom Electronics Ltd. in favour of plaintiff No.1 National Insurance Company Ltd. Vide these documents, plaintiff No.2, on receipt of Rs.12,50,000/- from plaintiff No.1 in respect of loss/damage to it under Policy No.420602/175152/31.03.98 assigned, transferred and abandoned all its rights, title and interest in respect of the above mentioned policy. It also granted full power to plaintiff No.1 to use all lawful ways and means to recover the damages. Plaintiff No.1 was also authorized to sue in the name of plaintiff No.2 in any action or proceedings that it might bring in its own name or in the name of plaintiff No.2 in relation to the matter assigned, transferred and abandoned under these documents. It also agreed that any money collected from any person shall be the property of plaintiff No.1 and if the same is received by plaintiff No.2, it will be made over to plaintiff No.1. These documents have been proved by PW-1, Shri A.K. Goel, Assistant Manager of plaintiff No.1. The authenticity of these documents which have otherwise been attested by a Notary Public in New Delhi has been assailed by the defendant on the CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -23- ground that the policy number mentioned in these documents is different from the policy number mentioned in the receipt „Exhibit PW-1/11‟ and also on the ground that according to PW-1 the Letter of Subrogation was executed in Rohtak, whereas they have been attested at New Delhi. I, however, find no merit in the contention.
PW-1 did not have any personal knowledge as to the place where these documents were executed. He stated that he presumed that it must have been executed in the office of the plaintiff-Company in Rohtak, from where the policy had been taken. However, this presumption on the part of PW-1 cannot be preferred to the documents themselves. Plaintiff No.2 is a Company based in Delhi. The stamp papers on which the documents have been prepared were purchased from a stamp vendor in Delhi, as is evident from the stamp of the stamp vendor on the back side of the documents. The documents have been attested by a witness Mr. A.K. Dixit, who has given his address as B-23, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi. They have been attested by a Notary Public at New Delhi. There is no indication in the documents that they were executed at Rohtak, though they are addressed to Rohtak Branch of National Insurance Company Ltd. Hence, there is no merit in the contention that the documents were executed at Rohtak and attested at New Delhi.
Exhibits PW-1/8 and PW-1/9‟ are the other two Letters of Subrogation purporting to be executed by plaintiff No.2 in favour of plaintiff No.1 in respect of Policy No.420602/21/99/96/00020/11-06-
96. These documents also have been attested by a Notary Public at New Delhi. They also have been signed by Mr. A.K. Dixit who has signed `Exhibit PW-1/6 and PW-1/7‟ as a witness. The stamp paper for these documents have also been purchased from a stamp vendor in Delhi as is evident from the stamp of the stamp vendor on the back side of these documents.
As regards the alleged discrepancy in the policy number, a bare perusal of the receipt `Exhibit PW-1/11' would show that the number 420602/21/99/0005/98 mentioned in this document is claim number and not the policy number. Therefore, there is no contradiction in the CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -24- receipt and the Letters of Subrogation as regards the number of the policy to which these documents pertain.
13. ........
14.........
15. Since the Power of Attorney Ex. PW-1/10, purporting to be executed by plaintiff No. 2 in favour of plaintiff No. 1 has been attested by a Public Notary, there is a statutory presumption under Section 85 of Evidence Act that the Power of Attorney was executed by the person by whom it purports to have been executed and the person who executed the power of attorney was fully competent in this regard. In Jugraj Singh and Anr. Vs. Jaswant Singh and Ors., AIR 1971 SC 761, the Power of Attorney attested by a Public Notary was disputed on the ground that it did not show on its face that the Notary had satisfied himself about the identity of the executant. Supreme Court held that there was a presumption of regularity of official acts and that the Notary must have satisfied himself in the discharge of his duties that the person who was executing it was the proper person. In Rajesh Wadhwa vs. Sushma Govil, AIR 1989, Delhi 144, it was contended before this Court that till it is proved that the person who signed the said power of attorney was duly appointed attorney, the court cannot draw a presumption under Section 57 and 85 of the Evidence Act. Repelling the contention, it was held by this Court that the very purpose of drawing presumption under Sections 57 and 85 of the Evidence Act would be nullified if proof is to be had from the foreign country whether a particular person who had attested the document as a Notary Public of that country is in fact a duly appointed Notary or not. When a seal of the Notary is put on the document, Section 57 of the Evidence Act comes into play and a presumption can be raised regarding the genuineness of the seal of the said Notary, meaning thereby that the said document is presumed to have been attested by a competent Notary of that country.
.....................................................................
CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -25-..................................................................... ........................Hence, in this case also the Court is required to draw the requisite statutory presumption that the power of attorney Ex. PW-1/10 was executed by plaintiff No.2 in favour of plaintiff No.1 and that the person who executed the Power of Attorney on behalf of plaintiff No. 2 was duly authorized in this behalf.
22. From the perusal of marine policy MARK-A, subrogation agreement Ex. PW1/B, power of attorney Ex. PW1/P and discharge voucher Ex. PW1/K, it is clear that plaintiff no. 1 has been subrogated by plaintiff no. 2 to act on its behalf to recover losses from the defendant and plaintiff no. 1 has discharged its liability towards plaintiff no. 2 caused by the defendant to the tune of Rs. 11,16,472/-. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.
23. Secondly, I will examine whether the defendant is liable for the loss caused to plaintiff no. 2. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has denied any liability of defendant against plaintiff no. 2 and contended that the defendant has performed her part of contract towards plaintiff no. 2 satisfactorily. On the other hand, the plaintiff has argued that the cargo consignment was damaged due to the defendant's negligence.
As such, business relationship between plaintiff no. 2 and the defendant is not denied. Defendant has also admitted that plaintiff no. 2 sent the consignment through the defendant to Orissa. It is also admitted in paragraph number 7 of the written CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -26- statement that partial loss had been caused to the consignment however, it is denied that it was due to the negligence of the defendant. In paragraph no. 4, it is stated that on the invoice itself, it is mentioned that consignment is being carried at owner's risk, and the part of insurance was kept vacant. DW-1 in cross examination admitted that he is not aware if any document has been filed to show that goods were sent in intact condition. This witness denied any obligation on the defendant to deliver the goods in intact condition.
24. I have perused consignment letter dated 28.01.2021 PW1/D and in this document it is stated in capital letters "AT OWNER'S RISK". DW-1 has also identified this consignment letter during cross examination. Under the caution clause of this invoice it is mentioned as under :-
1. Transport Co. is not responsible for leakage, breakage, demurrage, fire and riots.
2. Consignee and consignor responsible for illegal goods and octroi.
3. This G.C. Note issued subject to terms and conditions printed overleaf.
25. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has rebutted this contention of the defendant and argued that there was no special contract between plaintiff no. 2 and the defendant to escape the responsibility for leakage, breakage, demurrage, fire and riots. Reliance is placed on Nath Bros Exim International Ltd. Vs. Best CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -27- Roadways (2000 AIR SCW 2116) passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Relevant paragraph of this judgement is as under :-
9. Plaintiffs, in suits for loss, damage, or non-delivery, not required to prove negligence or criminal act.- In any suit brought against a common carrier for the loss, damage or non-delivery of goods (including containers, pallets or similar article of transport used to consolidate goods) entrusted to him for carriage, it shall not be necessary for the plaintiff to prove that such loss, damage or non-
delivery was owing to the negligence or criminal act of the carrier, his servants, or agents." Section 4 contemplates the rates fixed by the carrier for carrying the property entrusted to it to the place indicated by the consignor. The Proviso to this Section contemplates a still higher rate than the ordinary rate of charge for carrying the goods. The only requirement is that the carrier should have exhibited at the place of his business a notice indicating the higher rate of charge required for carrying the goods. Section 5 provides that where the property entrusted to the carrier is lost or damaged, then the owner thereof would be entitled not only to recover the damages for the loss or damage to the property, but he will also be entitled to recover any amount which might have been paid to the carrier as a consideration for carrying the goods. Section 6 speaks of unlimited liability of the common carrier in respect of goods, not being of the description contained in the Schedule to the Act. It is provided that the liability shall not be deemed to be limited or affected by any public notice. Section 8 provides in specific terms that where any property is entrusted to any carrier for being carried to the destination indicated by the owner thereof, the carrier shall be liable for loss or damage caused by neglect or fraud of the carrier or its agent. Section 9 provides that in a suit for recovery of damages for loss or non-delivery of the goods, the burden of proof would not be on the plaintiff to establish that loss or damage or non-delivery was caused owing to the negligence or criminal act of the carrier, his servants or agents. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that under Section 151 of the Indian Contract Act, the carrier as a bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstances, take CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -28- of his own goods. It is contended that if that amount of care, which a person would have taken of his own goods, is not taken by the carrier, it would amount to deficiency in service and the carrier would be liable in damages to the owner for the goods bailed to him.
: "A common carrier is not a mere bailee of goods entrusted to him. He is an insurer of goods. He is answerable for the loss of goods even when such loss is caused not by either negligence or want of care on his part, act of God and of King`s enemies excepted. This arises because responsibility attached to the public nature of the business carried on by him. He holds out as a person who has the expertise and the facilities to conduct the business of transport; consequently he is treated as an insurer of the goods and is answerable for its loss. This concept as to the liability of a common carrier has been applied in India uniformly. The rule of the Roman law as to the liability of a carrier is different. It does not conceive of an absolute liability as in the English Common Law and the rule of the Roman Law has been adopted by many States in the continent. The extent of liability of a bailee under Ss. 151 and 152 of theIndian Contract Act, 1872, is different from the extent of liability of a common carrier. A bailee is only bound to take proper care of the goods and for loss beyond his control he is not answerable. But the provisions of the Indian Contract Act do not govern the liability of a common carrier nor do they override the provisions of the Carriers Act, 1865. This question was considered by the Privy Council in (1891) ILR 18 Cal.620 (PC) and it was held that notwithstanding the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, the liability of a common carrier continues to be absolute subject to any special contract entered into by him." This decision was followed by the Kerala High Court in Kerala Transport Co. v. Kunnath Textiles 1983 Kerala Law Times
11. He held that that clause should have its full effect whereas if "at charterers' risk" had included an exception of negligence, it might not have done so. That judgment has been followed since 1932, for CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -29- example in The Stranna (1937) 57 Ll.L.Rep. 231; (1937) P.130 and East & West Steamship Co. v. Hossain Brothers, (1968) 2 Lloyd`s Rep. 145 (Supreme Court of Pakistan) and it has not, so far as I am aware, been dissented from." In Mitchell v. Lanc. & Y.R., 44 LJQB 107 = LR 10 QB 256, it was held that "OWNER`S RISK" only exempts the carrier from the ordinary risks of the transit and does not cover the carrier`s negligence or misconduct. So also, in Lewis vs. The Great Western Railway Company 3 Queen`s Bench 195, the words "OWNER`S RISK", were held to mean, "at the risk of the owner, minus the liability of the carrier for the misconduct of himself or servants." Thus the expression "at owner`s risk" does not exempt a carrier from his own negligence or the negligence of his servants or agents. We may now consider the facts of this case. The Consignment Note No. 52330 dated 11th March, 1994, through which the goods were booked with the respondent says "AT OWNER`S RISK". In the column meant for insurance, again, the alphabets "OR" are mentioned, which obviously mean "OWNER'S RISK".
26. This principle has been reiterated in the case of Rotla India Ltd. Vs. ELBEE Services Ltd. AIR 2001 Delhi 353, the question of the liability of a common carrier was considered and it was observed that the common carrier has been placed on the same pedestal as the insurer. In any event the common carrier is liable to pay the loss or the damage caused to the goods accepted as carrier. The only defense available to the common carrier is that the loss or damage was not caused due to its negligence which even otherwise is assumed.
Thus, from the above it can be concluded that the defendant who is the carrier, is assumed to be the insurer of the goods and any liability cannot be fastened on shipper i.e; plaintiff no. 2 in respect for the goods damaged during transportation.
CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -30-27. Further, the defendant has argued that PW1/G and PW1/H are inconsistent documents as claim notice dated 06/05/2021 (PW1/G) has been issued prior to damage certificate dated 28/05/2022 (PW1/H). It is argued that the damage certificate is false and fabricated and not issued by the defendant. I have carefully perused both the documents. Claim notice dated 06/05/2021 clearly states "please return a signed copy of this notice to us, along with your company seal, acknowledging its receipt or reply to the same citing this letter ". Subsequent to this damage certificate duly signed by the proprietor of the defendant has been given. Thus, no inconsistency has been found in the timeline of issuance of these documents. It is pertinent to note that the signature of the defendant Sh. Kavita Devi on the damage certificate is the same as the signature present of the written statement filed by her. Defendant has not come forward to depose in the present matter to disapprove her signature. Even DW-1 in cross-examination stated that he can not identify signatures of the defendant. It appears that the defendant has deliberately not come forward in the witness box to depose in the present matter.
From the above it can be concluded that damage was caused to the consignment during transportation by the defendant to the tune of Rs. 10,64,000/- as per the damage certificate Ex. PW1/4.
28. Now, I will assess the quantum of damage to the consignment. To prove this plaintiff no. 1 has placed reliance on CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -31- the report of the surveyor dated 20/02/2021 Ex. PW1/J. The surveyor has not come to depose in respect of this document. It is argued by plaintiff no. 1 that it is not required to examine the surveyor to prove the surveyor's report. Reliance is placed on India Assurance Co. Ltd. And ANR vs State of A.P. Ors passed by Telangana High Court. I have perused this judgment with utmost regard however this judgment is not applicable to facts in hand and the surveyor should have come to depose in the witness box to clarify the same. It is pertinent to note clause 23. of this document which states as under :-
23. May be due to rough handling during loading at the consignor end or due to jerk / jolt during transit, the PVC jar got rupture and leaking the liquid parts. Also part 2 nos.
Product tag/ striker got PVC jars were.
Defendant has herself given damage certificate Ex. PW-1/H. She did not come in the witness box to depose. As observed earlier, signatures of the defendant on the written statement resembles with the signatures on Ex. PW-1/H. I am of the view that plaintiff no. 1 is able to prove the damages to the tune of Rs. 10,64,000/-.
28. Lastly, the defendant has taken defence that she has discharged her liability in respect of plaintiffs no. 2 satisfactorily and there is no liability on her. To prove this contention DW-1 Sh. Narendra Kumar Mewa appeared on behalf of defendant. This witness filed a copy of the identity card DW1/1. However, no copy of the authorisation letter was placed on record on behalf of the defendant authorising DW-1 to pursue the present matter.
CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -32-In cross-examination this witness admitted that he has not placed on record any document except his ID card. He further stated that he has been instructed by the proprietor of the defendant's firm to depose in this matter. He further states that he does not know the name of the proprietor of the defendant's firm. Thus, DW-1 had no power to depose in the present matter in absence of any valid power of attorney / authorization letter and he could prove assertions of the written statement.
29. I am of the view that plaintiff no. 1 is partly able to prove this issue to an admitted amount of Rs. 10,64,000/-. Thus, this issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.
30. Issue No. 3- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the amount of Rs. 11,16,472/-. If ye, for what rate and for what period ? (OPP) The plaintiff has claimed interest @ 18% per annum from the defendant. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has placed reliance on judgment titled as "The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. M.K.J. Corporation" [1996] Supp. 95) SCR 20 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, wherein, it is held that " That next question is : what rate of interest the insured-respondent is entitled to get ? In common parlance, when the insured- respondent is deprived of right to enjoy his money or invest the money in business, necessarily the loss has to be compensated by way of payment of interest by the insurance company. We are informed that as per the directions of the Government of India the appellant-insurance company has no option but to invest the CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -33- money in the securities specified by the Government of India under which the insurance company is securing interest on investment at the rate of 11.3% per annum. Under these circumstances, the appellant-insurance company is liable to pay interest at 12% per annum from January 1, 1991 till date of payment." Reliance can be placed in this regard on the judgment of Central Bank of India Vs Ravindra & Ors MANU/SC/0663/2001 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In this judgment it is held that according to stroud's Judicial dictionary of Words and Phrases interest means, inter alia, compensation paid by the borrower to the lender for deprivation of the use of his money. In Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa & Ors Vs G. C. Roy Manu/ SC/0297/1992 (1992) 2 SCC 508, it is held that the constitution bench opined that a person deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated for the deprivation, call it by any name. It may be called interest, compensation or damages. This is the principles of Section 34 CPC.
In this judgment, Judgment of Dr. shamlal Narula Vs CIT Punjab MANU/ SC/0109/1964 (53) was also relied upon wherein it is held that interest is paid for the deprivation of the use of the money. In this judgment it is also held that in whatever category "interest in a particular case may be put, it is a consideration paid either for the use of money or for forbearance in demanding it, after it has fallen due, and thus, it is charge for the use of forbearance of money. In this sense, it is a compensation allowed by law or fixed by parties, or permitted by customs or usage, for use of money, belonging to another, or of CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -34- the delay in paying money after it has become payable. Reliance can also be placed on the judgment of Aditya Mass Communication (P) Ltd Vs APSRTC MANU/SC/0759/2003 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court granted interest @ 12% p.a. Reliance can also be placed on the judgment of " M/s IHT Network Limited Vs. Sachin Bhardwaj" in RFA No. 835/2016 & CM Appl.14617/2020 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has granted interest @12% per annum.
I am of the view that the interest claimed by the plaintiff is very excessive and plaintiff is entitled to interest on the amount of Rs. 10,64,000/- @ 12% per annum which is reasonable and usually prevailing market rate of interest from the date of filing of suit till realization.
31. RELIEF:
In view of my above discussions, the suit of the plaintiffs is partly decreed and a decree of Rs. 10,64,000/- is passed in favour of the plaintiff no. 1 and against the defendant. The plaintiff no. 1 is also entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of Rs. 10,64,000/- from the date of filing of suit till realization. Plaintiff no. 1 is also entitled to the cost of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room, after necessary compliance.
Announced in the (NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA)
open court on 05.02.2026 District Judge, Comm. Court-06
West, Tis Hazari Courts
Digitally signed Extension Block, Delhi/05.02.2026 by NARESH NARESH KUMAR KUMAR MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date:
2026.02.05 16:26:00 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 821/2024 -35-