Delhi District Court
Ruchit Bansal vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd on 12 May, 2026
CS (Comm.) No.323/2025: Ruchit Bansal, Proprietor of M/s Bansal Transport Company V/s
Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.: DOD: 12.05.2026
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02:
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI
CNR No.DLNW01-004736-2025
Civil Suit (Comm.) No.323/2025
In the matter of:
Ruchit Bansal,
Proprietor of M/s Bansal Transport Company
Office At: Plot No.19, Shop No.6,
Community Centre, Lawrence Road, Delhi-110035.
Resident At: WZ-2272, Raja Park, Shakur Basti,
Delhi-110034.
.....Plaintiff
(Through Shri Vivekanand Jha, Advocate)
Versus
M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Through Its Senior Divisional Manager/Incharge
Office At: 6th Floor, Oberoi Commerz International Business Park,
Oberoi Garden City, Off. Western Express Highway,
Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400063.
Registered Office At: Flat No.10-15, 14th Floor, Vijaya Building,
17th, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
Also At: Global Business Park Building,
8th Floor, Unit No.804-805 Tower,
M.G Road, Sector-26, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002.
.....Defendant
(Through Shri Akshay Aggarwal and Ms.Sukriti Pratap, Advocate)
Date of Institution of Suit : 05.05.2025
Date of hearing final arguments : 12.05.2026
Date of judgment : 12.05.2026
Digitally signed
VINOD byYADAV
VINOD
Page 1 of 20
YADAV Date: 2026.05.12
16:54:32 +0530
CS (Comm.) No.323/2025: Ruchit Bansal, Proprietor of M/s Bansal Transport Company V/s
Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.: DOD: 12.05.2026
COMMERCIAL SUIT FOR RECOVERY UNDER THE COMMERCIAL
COURTS, COMMERCIAL DIVISION & COMMERCIAL APPELLATE
DIVISION OF HIGH COURTS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2018 FOR
RECOVERY OF Rs.25,00,000/- ALONGWITH PENDENTELITE AND
FUTURE INTEREST @18% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF FILING
OF SUIT TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION OF THE SUIT AMOUNT
WITH COST THROUGHOUT.
12.05.2026
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff's case:
1. The facts of the case in brief as borne out from the record are that plaintiff is the proprietor of M/s Bansal Transport Company, engaged in the business of transporting goods through his transport carriers. In the year 2020, plaintiff purchased a truck bearing registration No.DL-1GC-8141, Model TATA LPT 3718 CR BS-IV 10X2, Engine No.ISBE5.91804091D63786372 and Chasis No.MAT541068K1D10262 (hereinafter referred to as the "said vehicle"). It is averred that as per order dated 27.07.2018, passed by Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, in M.A No.1047/2018, the said vehicle was to be used for the purpose of carriage of food products on behalf of Food Corporation of India (in short FCI) and for no other purpose.
2. Defendant company is stated to be engaged in the business of providing insurance for all types of vehicles. It is stated that plaintiff got the "said vehicle" insured from the defendant company vide Policy No.130422323340018255 and Proposal/Cover Note No.R15122366564, issued on 15.12.2023, valid for the period from 16.12.2023 to 15.12.2024, with an Insurance Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only).Page 2 of 20
CS (Comm.) No.323/2025: Ruchit Bansal, Proprietor of M/s Bansal Transport Company V/s Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.: DOD: 12.05.2026
3. It is further averred that the "said vehicle" was stolen in the intervening night of 24/25.12.2023 from the jurisdiction of PS Samaipur Badli, when the same was lying parked in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, under the lock and key of plaintiff's driver namely Shri Ram Bharose Yadav, who had taken it to the shop of Shri Bunty Singh, owner of Bunty Singh Truck Body Maker at AG-74, behind petrol pump, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi for some repairs.
4. (i) The plaintiff immediately after getting to know that the "said vehicle" had been stolen, reported the matter to the police and an e-FIR bearing No.039865, dated 25.12.2023, under Section 379 IPC was registered at Police Station Samaipur Badli.
(ii) The plaintiff also intimated the defendant insurance company on 25.12.2023 itself about theft of the "said vehicle".
5. Despite best efforts, the "said vehicle" could not be traced by the police. The investigating authority/police as such filed Untrace Report in the matter, which was accepted by learned ACMM-01 (North-West), Rohini District Courts vide order dated 22.02.2024. The plaintiff immediately communicated the aforesaid duly accepted Untrace Report to the defendant insurance company. Thereafter, the defendant appears to have appointed a Surveyor, who conducted thorough investigation in the matter and found the facts to be correct, yet the defendant did not sanction the claim of the plaintiff.
Page 3 of 20CS (Comm.) No.323/2025: Ruchit Bansal, Proprietor of M/s Bansal Transport Company V/s Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.: DOD: 12.05.2026
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of defendant, the plaintiff approached the Insurance Ombudsman by way of complaint bearing Reference No.DEL-G-035-2425-0225, dated 27.08.2024. The Insurance Ombudsman heard the plaintiff and the defendant and passed the following direction vide order dated 30.12.2024:
xxxxx Mediation was arrived at under Rule 16 of Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017. Accordingly, the insurers will inquire from the workshop owner whether he had taken any insurance cover in respect of his workshop. After inquiring the same, the Insurer will review the claim in the light of the findings of inquiry and settle the claim as per policy terms and conditions within 30 days of the receipt of Award.
xxxxx
7. Despite the aforesaid direction of the Insurance Ombudsman, the defendant company repudiated the claim of plaintiff on the premise that the case of the plaintiff was covered under General Exception No.2, i.e "the company shall not be liable under this Policy in respect of any claim arising out of any contractual liability". Thereafter, the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant on 30.01.2025, inter alia seeking IDV value of Rs.25,00,000/- alongwith interest with effect from the date of acceptance of Untrace Report till recovery of the amount. Despite the deemed service of the said legal notice, neither any reply thereto was sent by the defendant nor the claim of the plaintiff was sanctioned.
Page 4 of 20CS (Comm.) No.323/2025: Ruchit Bansal, Proprietor of M/s Bansal Transport Company V/s Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.: DOD: 12.05.2026
8. Thereafter, the plaintiff approached for pre-institution mediation in terms of Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Despite service of pre-institution mediation notice, the defendant did not give its consent and willingness to participate in the mediation process. Accordingly, Certificate of Non-Starter Report dated 05.04.2025 was issued in the matter.
9. As such, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit, inter alia seeking a decree in the sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only) alongwith pendentelite and future interest @18% per annum against the defendant.
Defendant's case:
10. (i) After getting served with the summons, defendant filed written statement, inter alia taking preliminary objections that the present suit did not involve any commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(i)(c) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the jurisdiction in the matter lies with the Consumer Redressal Forum.
(ii) On merits, the factual position was not disputed, but it was claimed that the case of plaintiff falls under General Exception No.2 and as such, the repudiation of claim was proper.
Replication:
11. Plaintiff filed replication, inter alia denying the averments made in the written statement and reiterating the ones made in the plaint.
Page 5 of 20CS (Comm.) No.323/2025: Ruchit Bansal, Proprietor of M/s Bansal Transport Company V/s Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.: DOD: 12.05.2026 Issues:
12. With these pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 24.02.2026, following issues were settled for trial in the matter:
Issues:
(i) Whether the repudiation of claim of the plaintiff by the defendant in the matter is illegal? OPP.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of the suit amount, as prayed for? OPP.
(iii) If answer to aforesaid issue is in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest thereupon. If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
(iv) Relief.
13. Pursuant to framing of issues in the matter, vide order dated 24.02.2026 itself, Shri Bhagya Juneja, Advocate was appointed as "Local Commissioner" to record evidence in the matter.
Plaintiff's evidence:
14. (a) In order to discharge the onus of proving issues put upon him, plaintiff/Shri Ruchit Bansal, being proprietor of M/s Bansal Transport Company examined himself as as PW-1, who in his evidence by way of Affidavit Ex.PW1/A has reiterated the averments made in the plaint and proved on record the following documents:
(i) Certificate of Non-Starter Report, dated 05.04.2025, issued under the signatures of Secretary, DLSA, North-West as Ex.PW1/1;
(ii) Copy of Registration Certificate of "said vehicle" marked as, Mark A (inadvertently written as Ex.PW1/2 in the Affidavit by way of evidence of this witness);Page 6 of 20
CS (Comm.) No.323/2025: Ruchit Bansal, Proprietor of M/s Bansal Transport Company V/s Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.: DOD: 12.05.2026
(iii) Copy of his Aadhar Card as Ex.PW1/2A (OSR);
(iv) Copy of Insurance Policy No.130422323340018255, issued by the defendant in respect of the "said vehicle" as Mark B (inadvertently written as Ex.PW1/3 in the Affidavit by way of evidence of this witness);
(v) Copy of e-FIR No.039865, dated 25.12.2023, PS Samaipur Badli as Ex.PW1/4;
(vi) Copy of Untrace Report, dated 22.02.2024, issued by learned ACMM-01 (North-West), Rohini District Courts as Ex.PW1/5;
(vii) Copy of complaint/Appeal, filed by plaintiff before the Insurance Ombudsman, Delhi as Mark C;
(viii) Copy of Order dated 30.12.2024, passed by the Insurance Ombudsman, Delhi as Mark D (inadvertently written as Ex.PW1/7 in the Affidavit by way of evidence of this witness)
(ix) Office copy of legal notice dated 30.01.2025, sent on behalf of plaintiff to the defendant alongwith speed post and courier receipts as Ex.PW1/8 (Colly);
(x) Affidavit under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, issued under the signatures of PW-1 regarding correctness of electronic documents Ex.PW1/X.
(b) PW-1 was thoroughly cross-examined by learned counsel for the defendant and I will advert to the same during the course of my findings on issues framed in the matter.
Page 7 of 20CS (Comm.) No.323/2025: Ruchit Bansal, Proprietor of M/s Bansal Transport Company V/s Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.: DOD: 12.05.2026
15. (i) Plaintiff further examined Shri Bunty Singh, owner of Bunty Singh Truck Body Maker as PW-2 in the matter, who in his evidence by way of Affidavit Ex.PW2/A stated that he was the owner of Bunty Singh Truck Body Mark and his shop is situated at AG-74, behind petrol pump, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi-110042. He stated that on 24.12.2023, he had repaired the "said vehicle" and after repairs, issued a bill for Rs.21,200/-, dated 24.12.2023 upon the plaintiff.
(ii) PW-2 was also thoroughly cross-examined by learned counsel for the plaintiff. In his cross-examination, the Bill/Cash Memo, bearing S.No.5104, dated 24.12.2025, issued by him in the name of M/s Bansal Transport Company, for a sum of Rs.21,200/- was put as Ex.PW2/RX.
Defendant's evidence:
16. (a) Defendant company examined its Senior Manager, Legal Claims namely Shri Chidanand Sahni as DW-1, who in his evidence by way of Affidavit Ex.DW1/A has reiterated the averments made in the written statement plaint and proved on record the following documents:
(i) Copy of Insurance Policy No.130422323340018255, issued by the defendant in respect of the "said vehicle" as Ex.RW1/1 (also Mark B in the evidence of PW-1);
(ii) Investigation Report, dated 11.03.2024, conducted by M/s SR Insurance Services as Ex.RW1/2; and
(iii) Copy of Authority Letter/Power of Attorney, dated 16.05.2025, thereby authorizing DW-1 to depose in the matter as Ex.RW1/3.Page 8 of 20
CS (Comm.) No.323/2025: Ruchit Bansal, Proprietor of M/s Bansal Transport Company V/s Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.: DOD: 12.05.2026
(b) DW-1/Shri Chidananda Sahani was thoroughly cross- examined by learned counsel for the plaintiff and I will advert to the same during the course of my findings on issues framed in the matter.
17. This is all as far as evidence recorded in the matter is concerned.
18. I have heard arguments advanced at Bar by Shri Vivekanand Jha, Advocate, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Shri Akshay Aggarwal, Advocate, learned counsel for the defendant and perused the record. My issue wise findings in the matter are as under.
19. Issue No.(i)::
Whether the repudiation of claim of the plaintiff by the defendant in the matter is illegal? OPP. And Issue No.(ii):
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of the suit amount, as prayed for? OPP.
The onus to prove both these issues was upon the plaintiff. Both these issues are being taken up together as the same are inter- connected and the findings thereupon would be common. At the outset, learned counsel for the defendant raised an objection qua the maintainability of present suit before this Court by arguing that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same as the dispute in the case pertains to an insurance claim, which falls within the ambit of consumer dispute and as such, present case is liable to be tried by the District Consumer Forum. In support of his aforesaid contentions, learned Page 9 of 20 CS (Comm.) No.323/2025: Ruchit Bansal, Proprietor of M/s Bansal Transport Company V/s Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.: DOD: 12.05.2026 counsel for the defendant has relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as, "Civil Appeal No.5611/1999", titled as, "Economic Transport Organization V/s M/s Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. & Anr." (DOD: 17.02.2010) to contend that the insurance disputes can be adjudicated by Consumer Forums only.
20. I am afraid the aforesaid argument advanced by learned counsel for the defendant is in total oblivion to Section 2(1)(c)(xx) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which expressly covers insurance contracts, generally confirming that disputes with insurance companies constitute "commercial dispute", arising out of various transactions, including insurance policies under sub-clause (xx).
21. I have gone through the judgment in case of "Economic Transport Organization" (supra) which was a dispute between consignor and the transporter, who while transporting the goods of consignor met with an accident and the insurance claim of the consignor was rejected by the insurance company. There was also an issue of subrogation involved in the matter. The facts of the said case were totally different from the facts involved in the case in hand and as such, the aforesaid judgment is of no help to the plaintiff.
22. Admittedly, the amount claimed by the plaintiff in the present case is more than Rs.3,00,000/-. As such, in terms of Section 2(1)(c)(xx) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.
Page 10 of 20CS (Comm.) No.323/2025: Ruchit Bansal, Proprietor of M/s Bansal Transport Company V/s Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.: DOD: 12.05.2026
23. A perusal of material on record, particularly the report of Surveyor Ex.RW1/2 clearly and unerringly shows that (a) plaintiff has good reputation; (b) both the original keys of the "said vehicle" were supplied by the plaintiff to the Surveyor; and (c) the facts leading to the theft of "said vehicle" were found to be correct. The conclusion part of the Surveyor's Report Ex.RW1/2 is as under:
__________________________________________ xxxxx SR Insurance Services Theft Investigation Report-Motor Date: 11.03.2024 Conclusion:
Tata LPT 3718 CR BS-IV 10X2/2019, bearing Registration No.DL-1GC-8141 is registered in the name of company M/s Bansal Transport Co. Prop. Ruchit Bansal.
The subject vehicle got finance from HDFC Bank Limited. Copy of Loan A/c statement and Non- Repossession Letter from the financier are pending from the insured's end.
The subject vehicle is insured with insurers vide Policy No.130422323340018255 for the period 16.12.2023 to 15.12.2024 having IDV of Rs.25,00,000/- enjoying 45% NCB. Previously, the subject vehicle was insured with The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., vide Policy No.214600/31/2023/1521 valid for the period 16.12.2022 to 15.12.2023. We have verified the same from toll free number of the previous insurers and they confirmed that policy period is OK and no claim is reported during the policy period.Page 11 of 20
CS (Comm.) No.323/2025: Ruchit Bansal, Proprietor of M/s Bansal Transport Company V/s Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.: DOD: 12.05.2026 The subject vehicle had been stolen on the intervening night of 24/25.12.2023 in between 22:30 Hrs to 06:00 Hrs from Bunty Singh Truck Body Maker, i.e AG-74, Behind Petrol Pump, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi.
The matter was informed by insured's Manager Mr.Sanjeev Garg at 112 PCR number by mobile number 9312446124. PCR van came at spot did the enquiry, but no clue was found. PCR call details is enclosed.
After that Mr.Ruchit Bansal went to the Police Station Samaipur Badli, outer North Delhi and given intimation about the theft incident and lodged the online e-FIR vide No.039865, under Section 379 IPC on 25.12.2023, i.e the same day of theft incident.
Mr.Ruchit Bansal had given intimation to insurance company on 25.12.2023, i.e the same day of the theft incident.
Mr.Ruchit Bansal (proprietor of M/s Bansal Transport Co.) confirmed that he received 02 original keys from the showroom at the time of purchasing the subject vehicle. Out of which, one key unused and the driver Mr.Ram Bharosa Yadav was using 2nd key to drive the subject vehicle. Both original keys (1 used and 2nd unused) provided by Mr.Ruchit Bansal are enclosed herewith.
Original RC provided by the insured is enclosed.
The DL of Mr.Ram Bharosa Yadav had stolen with the subject vehicle.
Page 12 of 20CS (Comm.) No.323/2025: Ruchit Bansal, Proprietor of M/s Bansal Transport Company V/s Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.: DOD: 12.05.2026 GPS was installed in the vehicle but its last location at Samaipur Badli, Delhi on 25.12.2023 at 02:26 hours as confirmed by insured's proprietor Mr.Ruchit Bansal, but GPS report provided by the insured is enclosed.
Copy of loan challan dated 23.12.2023 provided by the insured is enclosed.
As per online challan details, 4 challans found pending on e-portal. Payment receipts of pending challans are enclosed.
Remarks: Since the insured had left the vehicle at M/s Bunty Singh Truck Body Maker, I.e AG-74, behind Petrol Pump, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi for body repair and the subject vehicle had been stolen from there on intervening night of 24/25.12.2023, i.e claim falls under policy wording General Exceptions "The Company shall not be liable under the Policy in respect of any claim arising out of any contractual liability."
Based on above fact & findings, the insurers may deal with the claim subject to terms & conditions of Insurance Policy.
This report is submitted without prejudice.
xxxxx
24. After the conclusion arrived at by the Surveyor, the defendant repudiated the claim of plaintiff vide letter dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure F) by invoking General Exception that the claim arising out of contractual liability between plaintiff and M/s Bunty Singh Truck Body Maker was liable to be rejected.
Page 13 of 20CS (Comm.) No.323/2025: Ruchit Bansal, Proprietor of M/s Bansal Transport Company V/s Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.: DOD: 12.05.2026
25. It is clearly evident that the plaintiff was prompt in reporting the matter of theft of said vehicle not only to the police but also to the Insurance Company as well. The Surveyor appointed by the defendant clearly found the claim of theft of "said vehicle" to be genuine, then whether merely on account of the "said vehicle" having been stolen from in front of M/s Bunty Singh Truck Body Maker's shop can disentitle the plaintiff to have compensation or whether the defendant is justified in repudiating the claim on the basis of General Exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case involving somewhat similar facts has already laid down an authoritative pronouncement in case reported as, "Civil Appeal No.1386 (N) of 1973", titled as, "Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Kokilaben Chandravadan And Ors." (DOD: 01.04.1987), the operative part whereof reads as under:
xxxxx
14. In view of this provision apart from the implied mandate to the licensed driver not to place an unlicensed person in charge of the vehicle. There is also a statutory obligation on the said person not to leave the vehicle unattended and not to place it in charge of an unlicensed driver. What is prohibited by law must be treated as a mandate to the employee and should be considered sufficient in the eye of law for excusing non-compliance with the conditions. It cannot therefore in any case be considered as a breach on the part of the insured. To construe the provision differently would be to re-write the provision by engrafting a rider to the effect that in the event of the motor vehicle happening to be driven by an unlicensed person regardless of the circumstances in which such a contingency occurs, the insured will not be liable under the contract of Page 14 of 20 CS (Comm.) No.323/2025: Ruchit Bansal, Proprietor of M/s Bansal Transport Company V/s Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.: DOD: 12.05.2026 insurance. It needs to be emphasised that it is not the contract of insurance which is being interpreted. It is the statutory provision defining the conditions of exemption which is being interpreted. These must therefore be interpreted in the spirit in which the same have been enacted accompanied by an anxiety to ensure that the protection is not nullified by the backward looking interpretation which serves to defeat the provision rather than to fulfil its life-aim.
To do otherwise would amount to nullifying the benevolent provision by reading it with a non- benevolent eye and with a mind not tuned to the purpose and philosophy of the legislation without being informed of the true goals sought to be achieved. What the legislature has given, the Court cannot deprive of by way of an exercise in interpretation when the view which renders the provision potent is equally plausible as the one which renders the provision impotent. In fact it appears that the former view is more plausible apart from the fact that it is more desirable. When the option is between opting for a view which will relieve the distress and misery of the victims of accidents or their dependents on the one hand and the equally plausible view which will reduce the profitability of the insurer in regard to the occupational hazard undertaken by him by way of business activity, there is hardly any choice. The Court cannot but opt for the former view. Even if one were to make a strictly doctrinaire approach, the very same conclusion would emerge in obeisance to, the doctrine of "reading down" the exclusion clause in the light of the "main purpose" of the provision so that the "exclusion clause" does not cross swords with the 'main purpose' highlighted earlier. The effort must be to harmonize the two instead of allowing the exclusion clause to snipe successfully Page 15 of 20 CS (Comm.) No.323/2025: Ruchit Bansal, Proprietor of M/s Bansal Transport Company V/s Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.: DOD: 12.05.2026 at the main purpose. This theory which needs no support is supported by Carter's "Breach of Contract". Vide paragraph 251. To quote:-
"Notwithstanding the general ability of contracting parties to agree to exclusion clause which operate to define obligations there exists a rule, usually referred to as the "main purpose rule", which may limit the application of wide exclusion clauses defining a promisor's contractual obligations. For example, in Glynn v. Margetson & Co., [1893] A.C. 351 at 357 Lord Halsbury L.C. stated:
"It seems to me that in construing this document, which is a contract of carriage between the parties, one must be in the first instance look at the whole instrument and not at one part of it only.
Looking at the whole instrument, and seeing what one must regard ......... as its main purpose, one must reject words, indeed whole provisions, if they are inconsistent with what one assumes to be the main purpose of the contract."
Although this rule played a role in the development of the doctrine of fundamental breach, the continued validity of the rule was acknowledged when the doctrine was rejected by the House of Lords in Suissee Atlantigue Societed' Armement Maritime S.A.v.N.V. Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale, [1967] 1 A.C. 361 at 393,412-413,427-428, 430.
Accordingly, wide exclusion clauses will Page 16 of 20 CS (Comm.) No.323/2025: Ruchit Bansal, Proprietor of M/s Bansal Transport Company V/s Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.: DOD: 12.05.2026 be read down to the extent to which they are inconsistent with the main purpose, or object of the contract."
_ (Emphasis added).
15. In our opinion, therefore, the High Courts of Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh are right and the High Courts of Orissa, Patna and Madhya Pradesh are in error. The exclusion clause does not exonerate the Insurer.
xxxxx
26. The learned counsel for the defendant has emphasized that there was an implied contract between plaintiff and M/s Bunty Singh Truck Body Maker, pursuant whereto the "said vehicle" was parked at his workshop and there was as such a valid bailment within the meaning of Section 148 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 and thus plaintiff can recover the compensation amount from M/s Bunty Singh Truck Body Maker (PW-2).
27. I do not agree with the aforesaid argument for the simple reason that as per the evidence of PW-2 as well as the report of Surveyor Ex.RW1/2, PW-2 runs a small time truck repair shop. The driver of the plaintiff had actual control over the "said vehicle" for all the time during which the "said vehicle" remained at Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and the thief might have stolen the truck with some other master key.
28. Now, it will have to be seen as to whether the factum of leaving the truck unattended even for a moment is such a big crime Page 17 of 20 CS (Comm.) No.323/2025: Ruchit Bansal, Proprietor of M/s Bansal Transport Company V/s Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.: DOD: 12.05.2026 committed on behalf of plaintiff which takes away the very purpose/object of having insurance or that the defendant was justified in repudiating the claim solely on this ground. The answer has to be "No". Whether this is a fit case where the principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as, "Civil Appeal No.2703/2010", titled as, "Amalendu Sahoo V/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited" (DOD: 25.03.2010) and case reported as, "Civil Appeal No.3409/2008", titled as, "National Insurance Company Limited V/s Nitin Khandelwal" (DOD: 08.05.2008) has to be applied and the claim of the plaintiff is to be settled on non- standard basis by allowing only 75% of the IDV of the vehicle in question.
29. In my considered opinion, the settling of claim on non- standard basis will not apply in the present case as here in this case, there is no evidence that it was the plaintiff who contributed towards the theft of the "said vehicle". In a series of cases, where the driver left the vehicle unattended, leaving even the ignition key therein or in cases where there was inordinate delay in reporting the matter to the police in cases of theft only they were found to be contributory factors justifying settling of claim on non-standard basis. In this case, the contributory negligence is not found to be of that extent.
30. Accordingly, the repudiation of insurance claim by defendant vide letter dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure F) is found to be illegal. Both the issues are accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Page 18 of 20CS (Comm.) No.323/2025: Ruchit Bansal, Proprietor of M/s Bansal Transport Company V/s Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.: DOD: 12.05.2026
31. Consequently, the plaintiff is held entitled to the compensation amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only), which is the IDV value of the "said vehicle" with effect from the date of acceptance of Untrace Report, i.e 22.02.2024 alongwith interest.
32. Issue No.(iii):
If answer to aforesaid issue is in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest thereupon. If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
As regards the quantum of interest, learned counsel for the plaintiff has prayed for grant of interest @ 12% per annum on the IDV value of the "said vehicle". It is noted that the "said vehicle" was a commercial vehicle and even the insurance policy provided by the defendant was a commercial contract. As such, I am of the considered opinion that grant of interest @12% per annum would meet the ends of justice. I order accordingly.
Relief
33. In view of the above, suit of the plaintiff is decreed as under:
(i) A decree in the sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only) alongwith interest @12% per annum with effect from 22.02.2024 till realization thereof is passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant;
(ii) Plaintiff is also held entitled to counsel's fee which is quantified as Rs.22,000/- as also costs.
Page 19 of 20CS (Comm.) No.323/2025: Ruchit Bansal, Proprietor of M/s Bansal Transport Company V/s Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.: DOD: 12.05.2026
34. Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly.
35. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD YADAV YADAV Date: 2026.05.12 16:54:42 +0530 Dictated & Announced in the (Vinod Yadav) open Court on 12.05.2026 District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 North-West/Rohini Courts Page 20 of 20