Delhi District Court
Amber Tour Pvt Ltd vs United India Insurance Co Ltd on 26 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT)-02, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR NO.: DLND01-003254-2024
CS (COMM.)/361/2024
IN THE MATTER OF: -
M/s Amber Tour Pvt. Ltd.
707-708, Ακaksh Deep Building,
7th Floor, 26a Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi 110001.
. . . . . . Plaintiff
VERSUS
United India Insurance Co.Ltd
Regional Office DRO-1
18, Kanchenjunga Building,
8th Floor, Barkhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001.
. . . . . . Defendant
Suit for recovery of Rs. 12,26,185.82/-
(Rupees Twelve Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand One Hundred
Eighty Five and Eighty Two paise only) along with interest
Date of Institution : 24.04.2024
Date of reserving Judgment : 11.08.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 26.08.2025
JUDGMENT:-
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.12,26,185.82/- along with costs, pendent lite and future interest @ 12% per annum, from date of institution of suit till realization of the amount, against the above-named defendant. CS (Comm.)/361/2024 Amber Tour Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page 1 of 21 FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. The case of the plaintiff as set up in the plaint, in nutshell, is as under: -
2.1 The plaintiff is a company duly registered with the Registrar of Companies under the Companies Act, 1956 and its one of the Directors, namely, Sh. Kewal Krishan Sabharwal is duly authorized vide board resolution dated 15.03.2024 to file the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff company.
2.2 The defendant is a General Insurance Company of Public Sector and is engaged in business of non-life insurance through its different offices and persons spread over the different locations which covers the entire country.
2.3 The Plaintiff Company owns several vehicles for its business purpose and one of these vehicles bearing registration No. DL IZZ 1936, make Range Rover Power Sports, Model 2012, date of registration 19.02.2013 was authorized to cover entire country by the authorized permit No.CC/AA/DL/06234/21022013, valid up to 20.02.2018 issued by State Transport Authority, GNCT of Delhi for all India permit for tourist transport operations. The said vehicle was insured by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd vide Policy No. 0401013116P115443474 for the period CS (Comm.)/361/2024 Amber Tour Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page 2 of 21 14.02.2017 to 13.02.2018.
2.4 The said car met with an accident on 18.07.2017 at the roundabout of Race Course Road, New Delhi and got damaged. At the time of this accident, it was driven by Mr. S.K Raju, paid driver of the Plaintiff, duly authorized by the Licensing Authority, Delhi to drive such class of vehicle. The Plaintiff got the rough estimation of repair of said vehicle from AMP Motors Pvt. Ltd. dated 19.07.2017 and the claim was reported to Insurance Company i.e. the defendant.
2.5 A surveyor, Mr. Ram Avadh Singh was deputed for inspection of damaged vehicle to assess the loss by the Defendant. During course of repairs, the supplementary estimate was provided to surveyor by workshop.
2.6 The Defendant issued a final notice dated 12.03.2018 giving 7 days time to the Plaintiff to furnish the effective badge number of the concerned driver. It is stated that as per Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment of 3 Judges Bench on 03.07.2017 in the matter of Mukund Devagan v. Oriental Insurance in CIVIL APPEAL No. 5826 of 2011, a driver holding the license to drive "Light Motor vehicle" is not required to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle of such class. Further, Road CS (Comm.)/361/2024 Amber Tour Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page 3 of 21 Transport and Highways Authority, Govt. of India issued direction dated 16.04.2018 to all states and union territories for the compliance of the aforesaid order of Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of this direction the transport department, Govt of NCT of Delhi issued letter dated 01.05.2018 addressed to ACP, Police HQ for the compliance of the said order.
2.7 The Plaintiff being aggrieved by the denial of legitimate claim approached the grievance cell of the defendant but the plaintiff did not get any relief from there also as they reaffirmed the stand of defendant.
2.8 The plaintiff made a request to the defendant vide letter dated 24.07.2019 to know about the status of its pending claim but the defendant did not respond the same which leads to presumption that the defendant does not have any intention to pay the claim to the plaintiff. It is stated that the plaintiff has incurred total expenses of Rs. 7,14,283/- against the repair of his car which he paid to the AMP Motors Pvt. Ltd. on 01.08.2017, which claim was denied by the defendant. The Plaintiff filed a consumer complaint before the Hon'ble District Consumer Forum on 20.08.2019 vide Case No. CC/235/2019 against the defendant. The said consumer case was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated CS (Comm.)/361/2024 Amber Tour Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page 4 of 21 09.10.2023 with liberty to file in accordance with law, on the ground that it was filed in the wrong forum. Hence, the present suit. The suit amount of Rs.12,26,185.82/- includes the principle amount of Rs. 7,14,283/- and interest thereupon @ 12% p.a. from 01.04.2018 till 20.03.2024 (71 Months and 20 days) of Rs. 5,11,902.817/.
3. On being served with the summons of the suit, the defendant put its appearance through counsel and filed written statement on record contesting the suit. In its written statement, the defendant took various preliminary objections and stated as under: -
3.1 The claim of the plaintiff was rightly closed as "no claim" by the defendant insurance company as the plaintiff failed to co-operate with the defendant insurance company as well as with the surveyor appointed by the defendant insurance company. The defendant insurance company vide their letter dated 09.02.2018 and final notice 12.03.2018 requested the plaintiff to furnish the necessary documents required to process their claim along with the copy of badge of the driver covering the date of accident i.e. 18.07.2017. Since the documents requested from the plaintiff were not provided to the defendant insurance company therefore, the claim of the plaintiff was closed as "no claim".
CS (Comm.)/361/2024 Amber Tour Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page 5 of 21 3.2 The present suit and the claim lodged by the plaintiff do not fall within the ambit of insurance coverage and is not maintainable as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
3.3 On receipt of intimation of claim, the defendant insurance company immediately appointed Sh. Ram Awadh Singh as surveyor to conduct the survey and assess the loss. The said surveyor submitted his final report dated 14.09.2017 and assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs. 4,05,514/-. It is stated that the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments has categorically held that the surveyor report is an important piece of evidence for processing any insurance claim and it must be considered for assessing the claim amount.
3.4 The defendant has denied other averments made in the plaint and has prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. The plaintiff has filed replication to the written statement filed by the defendant wherein averments made in the plaint have been reiterated and reaffirmed and those made in the written statement have been controverted. ISSUES:
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for adjudication by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 13.01.2025 :-
CS (Comm.)/361/2024 Amber Tour Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page 6 of 21 (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 12,26,185.82 Paise from the defendant? OPP.
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest from the defendant? If yes, then at what rate and for which period? OPP.
(3) Relief.
6. It may be noted that after framing the issues, while exercising the power conferred under Order XVA Rule 6(o) and (p) CPC, the Court had directed that the evidence shall be recorded by Ld. Local Commissioner, appointed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court on commission basis, vide order dated 13-01-2025. Accordingly, both the parties were directed to lead their respective evidence before Ld. Local Commissioner, in terms of the timeline/ scheduled framed therein. In pursuant thereto, the plaintiff led its evidence before the Ld. Local Commissioner.
7. In support of its case, the plaintiff has examined two witnesses, namely, Sh. Kewal Krishan Sabharwal who is one of the Directors and AR of Plaintiff as PW-1 and Sh. Rahul Panchal i.e Service Advisor in the AMP Motors Pvt. Ltd. as PW-2.
8. PW-1 Sh. Kewal Krishan Sabharwal led his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) and deposed in terms of the averments made in the plaint. During his deposition, he has relied upon the following documents:-
CS (Comm.)/361/2024 Amber Tour Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page 7 of 21 Sr. No. Details of documents Exhibit
1. Copy of certificate of Ex. PW1/1 Incorporation
2. Board Resolution dated Ex. PW1/2 15.03.2025
3. Copy of registration Ex. PW1/3 certificate
4. Permit/Surrender Slip Mark A (The said document was mentioned as Ex.
PW1/4 in the affidavit Ex. PW1/A and the same was de-exhibited).
5. Copy of Insurance Ex. PW1/5Policy
6. Copy of Driving License Mark B The said document was mentioned as Ex.
PW1/6 in the affidavit Ex. PW1/A and the same was de-exhibited).
7. Computer generated Ex. PW1/7 rough estimate of repair
8. Copy of Surveyor report Ex. PW1/8 dated 14.09.2017
9. Copy of Final Notice Mark C dated 12.03.2018 sent by The said document was the defendant to the mentioned as Ex.
plaintiff PW1/9 in the affidavit Ex. PW1/A and the same was de-exhibited).
10. Print out of direction Ex. PW1/10 dated 16.04.2018 issued by the Road and Transport Authority, CS (Comm.)/361/2024 Amber Tour Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page 8 of 21 Sr. No. Details of documents Exhibit Government of India
11. Copy of Grievance cell Ex. PW1/11 reply
12. Last request letter dated Mark D 24.07.2019 of the (The said document plaintiff to the defendant was inadvertently mentioned as Ex.
PW1/11 in the affidavit Ex. PW1/A and the same was de-exhibited).
13. Computer generated Ex. PW1/12 bill/invoice dated 27.07.2017
14. Copy of bill/invoice Ex. PW1/13 dated 28.07.2017
15. Copy of payment receipt Ex. PW1/14
16. Copy of the letter dated Ex. PW1/15 24.12.2018, written by the plaintiff to the Office of Insurance Ombudsman.
17. The computer generated Ex. PW1/16 printout of the order dated 09.10.2023 passed by Consumer Court
18. Non-starter report dated Ex. PW1/17 05.02.2024
19. Certificate by way of Ex. PW1/18 affidavit U/O XI Rule 6(3) of the CPC regarding to the electronic documents.
CS (Comm.)/361/2024 Amber Tour Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page 9 of 21
9. PW-2 Sh. Rahul Panchal, is the summoned witness and working as Service Advisor in AMP Motors Pvt Ltd. He brought the summoned record and relied upon the following documents:-
Sr. No. Details of documents Exhibit
1. Statement of account for the Ex. PW2/1 period of August 2017.
2. Copy of ICIC Bank Advice Ex. PW2/2 Receipt dated 02.04.2025 for the transaction dated 01.08.2017
3. Copy of receipt voucher dated Ex. PW2/3 01.08.2017 against the amount ₹7,13,263.00
4. Copy of tax 27.07.2017, Ex. PW2/4(Colly) invoices dated 28.07.2017
10. The defendant, on the other hand, chose not to lead any evidence and on the statement of the Ld. Counsel of defendant, right of the defendant to lead evidence was closed by the Ld. Local Commissioner.
11. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. I have also gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of the defendant.
12. In the written arguments, the defendant has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
(1) Nakipuria Oil Mills vs National Insurance Co. Ltd., FA/609/2007, decided on 14.03.2013 by Hon'ble NCDRC, II (2013) CPJ 637 (NC);
CS (Comm.)/361/2024 Amber Tour Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page 10 of 21 (2) Tarun Parekh VS Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., FA/62/2015, decided on 24.05.2022 by Hon'ble NCDRC;
(3) Sri Venkateshwara Syndicate v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited., (2009) 8 SCC 507;
(4) Khatema Fibres Limited v. New India Assurance Company Limited., (2021) SCC OnLine SC 818 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
13. At the outset, I will deal with the issue of limitation as raised by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant during course of the arguments.
14. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has vehemently submitted that the present suit is barred by limitation. His contention is based on the premise that though the plaintiff has claimed the benefit of period spend in the wrong forum, but no separate application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the suit and in the absence thereof, the plaintiff cannot be granted benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for not computing the time spent before the District Consumer Forum.
15. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff has stated the fact of filing the case in the wrong forum i.e. Consumer Court which was withdrawn with liberty to file in accordance with law in the plaint itself and, therefore, no separate application under Section CS (Comm.)/361/2024 Amber Tour Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page 11 of 21 14 of the Limitation Act was required to be filed by the plaintiff. He further submitted that the plaintiff has also proved the order dated 09.10.2023 Ex. PW1/16 by which the liberty was granted by the Hon'ble Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum to file the suit before the appropriate forum.
16. There is no dispute to the fact that before instituting the present suit, the plaintiff had filed a complaint bearing No. CC/235/2019 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District New Delhi on 20.08.2019 in respect of the present claim and the said complaint was allowed to be withdrawn by the Hon'ble Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum vide order dated 09.10.2023 with a liberty to file in accordance with law. The plaintiff has averred the factum of filing of the claim for non payment by the defendant before the consumer court in a form of consumer complaint and withdrawal thereof on 09.10.2023 in the plaint itself. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the present suit having been filed on 24.04.2024 cannot be said to be barred by limitation. I am not in agreement with the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the defendant that only because the plaintiff has not filed separate application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the plaintiff is not entitled to benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Hence, the said contention is rejected and it is held that the suit filed by the plaintiff is within limitation.
CS (Comm.)/361/2024 Amber Tour Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page 12 of 21
17. Now coming to the issue-wise findings.
Issue No. 1(Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 12,26,185.82/-
from the defendant? )
18. The onus to prove this issue was placed upon the plaintiff.
19. The facts of the case are within narrow compass. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff had got the vehicle bearing Registration No. DL 1ZZ 1936 make Range Rover Power Sports, Model-2012 insured with the defendant vide policy No 0401013116P115443474 for the period 14.02.2017 to 13.02.2018 vide Ex. PW1/5. The plaintiff has claimed that the said vehicle met with an accident on 18.07.2017 and got damaged. At the time of accident, this vehicle was driven by Mr. S.K. Raju, the paid driver of the plaintiff who was holding a valid driving license to drive such class of vehicle. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff got rough estimation of repair of the vehicle from AMP Motors Pvt Ltd. dated 19.07.2017 and the estimate of the repair along with intimation letter was sent to the claim department of the defendant company and a surveyor Mr. Ram Awadh Singh was deputed for inspection of the vehicle to assess the loss. The surveyor submitted his report dated 14.09.2017 Ex. PW1/8, however the defendant issued a final notice dated 12.03.2018 asking the plaintiff to furnish the effective badge number of the concerned driver and arbitrarily denied the claim of the CS (Comm.)/361/2024 Amber Tour Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page 13 of 21 plaintiff on 12.03.2018.
20. The defendant has raised basically two issues while denying the claim of the plaintiff. Firstly, that the plaintiff has not provided the badge number of the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and secondly that the claim made by the plaintiff of Rs. 7,14,283/- is inflated, while the surveyor appointed by the defendant has assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs. 4,05,514/- only.
21. In view of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, it has to be seen as to whether the ground of the defendant to close the claim of the plaintiff is sustainable for not providing the badge number of the driver ? The answer lies in negative.
22. In Mukund Devagan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 5286 of 2011, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, "There is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle and if a driver is holding license to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect".
23. On the basis of the said judgment, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways vide letter dated 16.04.2018, issued to the Principal Secretaries (Transport)/ Secretaries (Transport)/ Transport Commissioners of all States/Union Territories Administration directed in para no. 3 as under: -
CS (Comm.)/361/2024 Amber Tour Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page 14 of 21 "In view of the legal position as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment, the requirement under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 to obtain the transport license would arise in case of medium/Heavy goods and passenger vehicles only. No other vehicle will require any separate endorsement, even if they are used for commercial purposes. The exemption from the requirement to obtain the endorsement for commercial vehicles would apply to following vehicles:
(i) Motor cycle without gear
(ii) Motor cycle with gear
(iii) Light motor vehicle (goods/passenger)
(iv) e-rickshaw/e-cart
24. In view of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and consequent circular issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Ex.PW1/10, the insistence of the defendant to provide the badge number of the concerned driver driving the vehicle on the date of the accident cannot be sustained.
25. Now, question arises that to what extent the plaintiff is entitled to claim towards the repair of the damaged vehicle?
26. The plaintiff has claimed that he got the damaged vehicle repaired from AMP Motors Pvt Ltd. and incurred total expenses of Rs. 7,14,283/-. In support of the said claim, the plaintiff has placed on record the computer generated bill/invoice dated 27.07.2017 and 28.07.2017 Ex. PW1/12 and Ex. PW1/13 respectively and payment receipt thereof Ex. PW1/14.
CS (Comm.)/361/2024 Amber Tour Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page 15 of 21
27. During his cross-examination, the witness examined by the plaintiff, namely, PW-1 Sh. Kewal Krishan Sabharwal has admitted that the surveyor submitted the report where he assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.4,05,514/-. He further admitted that the plaintiff company did not get the vehicle inspected by any independent surveyor. A question was put to the witness that, "Since you were not satisfied with the assessment of the surveyor of the defendant and then before carrying out the repairs, did you get the vehicle inspected by any independent surveyor?". The witness replied in negative and further submitted that the plaintiff company did not get the vehicle inspected by any independent surveyor. He was further asked whether before carrying out the repair for amount more that the amount assessed by the surveyor of the company of the defendant did he inform in writing to the defendant company seeking their approval for carrying out the repair. The witness answered that the vehicle was sent to the workshop, the workshop handed over the estimate Ex. PW1/7 which was submitted to the surveyor as demanded by him. After going though the estimate, the surveyor rejected certain expenses and passed the claim to the tune of Rs. 4,05,514/- and informed the insurance company.
28. It is a matter of record that pursuant to the information of the accident of the vehicle and damage caused to the vehicle communicated by the plaintiff to the CS (Comm.)/361/2024 Amber Tour Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page 16 of 21 defendant, the defendant company had appointed surveyor, namely, Mr. Ram Awadh Singh who inspected the damaged vehicle and assessed and passed the claim to the tune of Rs. 4,05,514/- vide his report dated 14.09.2017 Ex. PW1/8. The plaintiff got the vehicle repaired on his own for which he has claimed to have incurred expenses of Rs.7,13,263/- vide payment receipt Ex.PW1/14 -pursuant to the invoice raised by AMP Motors Pvt. Ltd. dated 27.07.2017 and 28.07.2017 Ex.PW1/12 & Ex. PW1/13 respectively. However, once the surveyor assessed the damages and passed the claim to the tune of Rs. 4,05,514/- only, the plaintiff could not have got the same repaired from an independent agency.
29. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not got the vehicle inspected by any independent surveyor if the plaintiff was not satisfied with the survey report of the defendant. Not only this, the plaintiff did not take any approval from the defendant to carry out the repair beyond the claim passed by the surveyor of the defendant for an amount of Rs. 4,05,514/-. The defendant has rightly relied upon the judgment in Nakipuria Oil Mills vs National Insurance Co. Ltd., Tarun Parekh vs. Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and Sri Venkateshwara Syndicate vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited. (supra) in which it has been held that, "The report submitted by a Surveyor is an important piece of evidence and has to be given due weight though it is not sacrosanct and can be ignored, CS (Comm.)/361/2024 Amber Tour Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page 17 of 21 provided that there is cogent evidence otherwise. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the amount assessed by the Surveyor has to be accepted".
30. In view of the above pronouncement, as the Surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 4,05,514/- and his report is an important piece of evidence and has to be given due weight, though it is not sacrosanct and could have been ignored provided that the plaintiff has established that the report submitted by the surveyor was not correct or he has not assessed the damages correctly. The plaintiff could have proved that the report submitted by the Surveyor of the defendant is not correct by engaging any independent Surveyor to assess the loss, but the plaintiff has not done so. Even the plaintiff did not take the approval of the defendant before carrying out the repairs beyond the loss assessed by the Surveyor of the defendant.
31. Further, the plaintiff has examined PW-2 Rahul Panchal from AMP Motors Pvt. Ltd. where he was working as Service Advisor to prove the tax invoice raised by the service provider Ex. PW1/12 & Ex. PW1/13 and payment receipt thereof Ex.PW1/14. In his cross- examination, PW-2 Rahul Panchal though has claimed that AMP Motors Pvt. Ltd is authorised dealership of Jaguar and Range Rover but he has not brought any document to show that AMP Motors Pvt Ltd is authorized dealer of Jaguar and Range Rover. He further stated that he deals in CS (Comm.)/361/2024 Amber Tour Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page 18 of 21 accidental claims, repairs and services. He admitted that when an accidental vehicle is brought at their workshop, a primary estimate is prepared and sent to the surveyor of the insurance company along with required and necessary documents. He further stated that the rough estimate prepared by dealership is not final. He stated that they provide estimate with the relevant documents to the surveyor, thereafter surveyor takes the photographs and inspects the vehicles and provides approval for dismantling and opening the accidental vehicle to further assess the losses caused to the accidental vehicle. He categorically admitted that the approved amount by the Insurance company is according to the terms and conditions of the policy. He further admitted that if they continue the repair to the accidental vehicle without the approval of the surveyor of the insurance company, then the amount in excess as assessed by the surveyor is borne by the customer. He further admitted that they did not get the vehicle surveyed by any other surveyor of the insurance company. He further admitted that only those parts were replaced which were inspected by the surveyor.
32. In view of the aforesaid statements of PW-2 Rahul Panchal, it is revealed that if the repair is carried out of an accidental vehicle without the approval of the Surveyor of the insurance company, the amount in excess as assessed by the Surveyor is to be borne by the customer. As the plaintiff did not get the vehicle surveyed by any CS (Comm.)/361/2024 Amber Tour Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page 19 of 21 independent surveyor as also admitted by this witness (PW-2), the plaintiff cannot claim that he is entitled to amount of Rs. 7,14,283/-.
33. Accordingly, as noted above, the defendant has primarily rejected the claim of the plaintiff on account of not providing the badge number of the concerned driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and the said contention of the defendant cannot be sustained as there was no requirement of providing the badge number of the concerned driver. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to claim the amount as assessed by the Surveyor of the defendant. Since the surveyor of the defendant has assessed the damage vide his report dated 14.09.2017 Ex. PW1/8 for an amount of Rs. 4,05,514/- and the plaintiff has not been able to prove that he is entitled to amount more than assessed by surveyor Mr. Ram Awadh Singh vide survey report Ex.PW1/8, the plaintiff is held entitled to recover amount of Rs.4,05,514/- from the defendant as assessed by the Surveyor of the defendant.
34. This issue is decided in these terms in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. 2(Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest from the defendant? If yes, then at what rate and for which period? )
35. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff.
CS (Comm.)/361/2024 Amber Tour Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page 20 of 21
36. The plaintiff has claimed interest @ 12% per annum since 01.04.2018 to 20.03.2024 on amount of Rs. 7,14,283/-. However, as the plaintiff is held entitled to claim of Rs. 4,05,514/- as assessed by the Surveyor of the defendant, the plaintiff cannot claim interest on Rs. 7,14,283/-. Further, as the defendant has wrongly closed the claim of the plaintiff without any justification, the defendant was liable to release amount of Rs. 4,05,514/- as passed by its Surveyor. The defendant has withheld the same, therefore the defendant is liable to pay the interest to the plaintiff. However, the interest claimed by the plaintiff appears to be on higher side in the absence of any evidence that such an interest was agreed to be paid by the defendant. Therefore, ends of justice will be met if the plaintiff is awarded interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of Rs. 4,05,514/- since 01.04.2018 till filing of the suit. The plaintiff is also entitled to pendente lite and future interest at the same rate on the decretal amount till the realization of the decretal amount, along with proportionate cost of the suit.
37. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
38. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance. Digitally signed BALWANT by BALWANT RAI BANSAL Announced in the open Court RAI Date:
on 26th August, 2025. BANSAL 2025.08.26 16:36:44 +0530 (Balwant Rai Bansal) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 Patiala House Courts, New Delhi CS (Comm.)/361/2024 Amber Tour Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page 21 of 21