Delhi District Court
Dhatri Pandey vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 7 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF GORAKH NATH PANDEY
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT),
NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
CS (COMM.) 137/2025
CNR No.DLNE01-003406-2025
MRS. DHATRI PANDEY,
C-11, 30 FEET ROAD,
GANGA VIHAR, TUKHMIRPUR,
NORTH EAST, DELHI - 110094.
.............. Plaintiff.
VERSUS
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
JEEVAN PRAKASH, PRABHAT NAGAR,
POST BOX NO.69, MEERUT - 250001,
UTTAR PRADESH.
.............. Defendant
Date of Institution : 18.11.2025
Date of final arguments : 07.02.2026
Date of decision : 07.02.2026
Decision : Decreed
JUDGMENT:-
1. This suit has been filed by the Plaintiff against the defendant seeking recovery of Rs.8,69,205/- alongwith interest.
2. As contended, the son of the plaintiff had taken a life insurance policy no.257452770 (Jeevan Anand (With Profits) (With Accident Benefit) for the period 28.11.2012 to 28.11.2032. The son of the plaintiff met with an accident on 28.07.2019 while riding as pillion rider on two wheeler vehicle and died on CS (Comm) 137/2025 Page No. 1 of 14 MRS. DHATRI PANDEY VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA 07.08.2019. Thereafter, the plaintiff submitted all the required documents with the defendant to get the accidental claim of the policy. However, the claim of the plaintiff was repudiated by the defendant for the reasons the policy holder was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident. It is claimed that the influence of alcohol does not make the deceased liable for the accidental claim considering the facts stated in the FIR No.742. It is claimed that the plaintiff is entitled for the basis sum assured with respect to accidental death benefit pertaining to the policy in question. Hence, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.8,69,205/- alongwith interest.
3. The defendant filed the written statement taking preliminary objections that - this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit as the branch office of the defendant which issued the policy in question is located at Sanjay Vihar, Avas Vikas Colony, Meerut Road, Hapur; the claim was also examined and rejected by the Office of LIC of India, Meerut Division, U.P., the present suit is barred by limitation. It is submitted that the insured was not entitled for the accidental death benefit under the death claim as he was under
the influence of Alcohol Intoxication at the time of accident. The defendant denied the other averments of the plaint and lastly prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.
4. In the replication, the plaintiff reiterated the contentions mentioned in the plaint and denied the averments of CS (Comm) 137/2025 Page No. 2 of 14 MRS. DHATRI PANDEY VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA defendants in the written statement.
5. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 08.01.2026:
Issues:
(i) Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? ...OPD
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree in the sum of Rs.8,69,205/- as prayed for .....OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if so, at what rate, at what amount and for what period......OPP
(iv) Relief.
6. The evidence in this case was recorded before the Local Commissioner vide order dated 08.01.2026. The plaintiff examined his son/Special Power of Attorney namely Mr. Anurag Kumar Pandey as PW1 vide his affidavit Ex.PW1/A who deposed as per the averments in the plaint. The witness had also relied upon following documents:
(1) Special Power of Attorney as Ex.PW1/1. (2) Copy of aadhar card of the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/1A. (3) Copy of aadhar card of the husband of the plaintiff as Mark A. (4) Copy of insurance policy as Ex.PW1/2. (5) Letter dated 20.02.20 as Ex.PW1/3. CS (Comm) 137/2025 Page No. 3 of 14
MRS. DHATRI PANDEY VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA (6) Acknowledged copy of the letter dated 12.10.2019 of plaintiff to defendant enlisting the documents as Ex.PW1/4.
(7) Copy of claim form as Ex.PW1/5. (8) Copy of blank discharge voucher as Ex.PW1/6. (9) Copy of NEFT Form as Ex.PW1/7. (10) Copy of death summary as Ex.PW1/8. (11) Copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/9. (12) Copy of MLC as Ex.PW1/10. (13) Copy of Postmortem Report as Ex.PW1/11. (14) Copy of death certificate as Ex.PW1/12. (15) Copy of repudiation letter dated 19.09.22 as Ex.PW1/13.
7. In rebuttal, the defendant examined its Administrative Officer Sh. Jeevan Prakash as DW1 vide his affidavit Ex.DW1/A. He has also relied upon the following documents:
(1) Status of Police No.257452770 as Ex.DW1/1. (2) Policy Bond of policy no.257452770 as Ex.DW1/2. (3) Repudiation letter dated 19.09.22 as Ex.DW1/3. (4) Report of Chatrapati Shivaji Subharti Hospital, Meerut as Ex.DW1/4.
(5) FIR No.742/19 as Ex.DW1/5. (6) Case Dairy of the FIR No.742/19 as Ex.DW1/6. (7) Final Report of the FIR No.742/19 as Ex.DW1/7. CS (Comm) 137/2025 Page No. 4 of 14
MRS. DHATRI PANDEY VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA (8) Brief History and examination of Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Center as Ex.DW1/8.
8. I have heard the final arguments on behalf of the parties and also gone through the records. I have also gone through the following judgments relied upon by the counsel for the defendant in support of their contentions:
(1) Smt. Kamla Chopra v. Life Insurance Corporation of India reported as 1973 SCC online Delhi 244; (2) Prestolite of India Ltd. v. General Insurance Corp. of India & Anr. reported as ILR (2008) 1 Delhi 1024; (3) Exports Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. v. Garg Sons International reported as (2014) 1 SCC 686; (4) Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Anita Panwar reported as (2016) SCC Online 1807;
(5) New India Assurance Ltd. v. UOI & Ors. reported as 2009 SCC online Del. 413.
9. My issue-wise findings are as under:
Issue No.1:
Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? ...OPD The onus to prove the above issue was on the defendant. This issue has been framed in view of the preliminary objections taken by the defendant in the written statement. It is submitted by the counsel for the defendant that the branch office of the defendant which issued the policy in question is located at CS (Comm) 137/2025 Page No. 5 of 14 MRS. DHATRI PANDEY VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Sanjay Vihar, Avas Vikas Colony, Meerut Road, Hapur, U.P.; the accidental death benefit claim was also examined and rejected by the office of defendant situated at Prabhat Nagar, Meerut, U.P and hence this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. Per contra, the counsel for the plaintiff submitted that this court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit as the policy was taken at Ganga Vihar, Delhi and the premium was also paid at Delhi; the injured died at Delhi and the postmortem was also conducted at Delhi.
Admittedly, the policy was taken at Delhi and the premium was also paid at Delhi. The death claim has already been given to the nominee of the deceased pertaining to policy in qeustion as stated during arguments. The DW1 during cross- examination also deposed that-
"It is also correct that at point B of Ex.PW1/3 was written by defendant company to plaintiff that the plaintiff need to present their document at Delhi Branch".
XXXX XXXX XXXX It is correct that under policy no.254864962 the claim was paid with accident benefit in September, 2025.
Since the policy was taken at Delhi; the premium was also paid at Delhi and the insured died at Delhi, the cause of action appears to have arose in Delhi within the territorial jurisdiction of this court in view of Section 20 of CPC.
I have gone through the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CS (OS) 243/2010 decided on 26.07.2012 titled Pramod Gupta Vs. Romesh Power Product Pvt. Ltd. wherein the similar issue was discussed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and CS (Comm) 137/2025 Page No. 6 of 14 MRS. DHATRI PANDEY VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA the ratio of the judgment is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The relevant para in respect of cause of action i.e. para nos.12 and 15 are reproduced for ready reference to come to the conclusion that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court and this court accordingly has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this matter as below:-
"12. A cause of action means every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded. It does not comprise evidence necessary to prove such facts, but every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a decree. Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a right to immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action. But it has no relation judgment must be par of the cause of action. But it has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff.
15. In the matter of contract there may arise causes of action of various kinds. In a suit for damages for breach of contract the cause of action consists of the making of the contract, and of its breach, so that the suit may be filed either at the place where the contract was made or at the place where it should have been performed and the breach occurred. The making of the contract is part of the cause of action. A suit on a contract, therefore, can be filed at the place where it was made.
The determination of the place where the contract was made is part of the law of contract. But making of an offer on a particular place does not form cause of action in a suit for damages for breach of contract. Ordinarily, acceptance of an offer and its intimation result in a contract and hence a suit can be filed in a court within whose jurisdiction the acceptance was communicated. The performance of a contract is part of cause of action and a suit in respect of the breach can always be filed at the place where the contract should have been performed or its performance completed. If the contract is to be performed at CS (Comm) 137/2025 Page No. 7 of 14 MRS. DHATRI PANDEY VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA the place where it is made, the suit on the contract is to be filed there and nowhere else. In suits for agency actions the cause of action arises at the place where the contract of agency was made or the place where actions are to be rendered and payment is to be made by the agent. Part of cause of action arises where money is expressly or impliedly payable under a contract. In cases of repudiation of a contract, the place where repudiation is received is the place where the suit would lie. If a contract is pleaded as part of the cause of action giving jurisdiction to the Court where the suit is filed and that contract is found to be invalid, such part of cause of the action disappears. The above are some of the connecting factors."
This court is also fortified in view of judgment by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in RSA No.40/2013 decided on 05.03.2014 titled Satyapal vs Slick Auto Accessories Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. in respect of the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the cause of action in respect of such transactions wherein similar issue was discussed.
In view of the above mentioned judgments, facts of the case as well as the testimony of the witnesses, it is proved that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court. This court is of the considered opinion that this court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter accordingly. This issue is, therefore, decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUES NO.2 & 3 (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree in the sum of Rs.8,69,205/- as prayed for .....OPP (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if so, at what rate, at what amount and for what period......OPP CS (Comm) 137/2025 Page No. 8 of 14 MRS. DHATRI PANDEY VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
10. Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 defines "burden of proof" which is reproduced as below:-
"101. Burden of proof- whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person."
Section 101 of the Evidence Act has clearly laid down that the burden of proving a fact always lying upon the person who asserts the facts. Until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. The court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies has been liable to discharge his burden. Until he arrives at such conclusion he cannot proceed on the basis of weakness of other party. Further, Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act contained that no fact need to be proved in any proceedings which parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the herein, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands or which by any rule of pleadings enforce at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings.
11. It is well settled that a suit has to be tried on the basis of the pleadings of the contesting parties which is filed in the suit in the form of plaint and written statement and the nucleus of the case of the plaintiff and the contesting case of the defendant in the form of issues emerges out of that. Being a civil suit, this suit is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.
CS (Comm) 137/2025 Page No. 9 of 14 MRS. DHATRI PANDEY VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA In the case of Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. Jagjit Chawla, reported in 183 (2011) DLT 418, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to observe as under:-
"A civil case is decided on balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities in the present case shows that the Power of Attorney Ex. PW3/1 and the Will Ex. P-1 were duly executed by the deceased Sh. Sohan Singh. The Power of Attorney is after all a registered Power of Attorney, and more importantly, the original title documents of the subject property are in the possession of the respondent No. 1 and which would not have been, if there was not to be any transfer of title in the suit property. Merely because two views are possible, this court would not interfere with one possible and plausible view which is taken by the court below, unless such view causes grave injustice. In my opinion, in fact, grave injustice will be caused not to the objectors/appellants but to the respondent No. 1 her father-in-law Sh. Sewa Singh, if the impugned judgment is set aside."
In the case of Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Daya Sapra, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 729, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:
''8. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that a creditor can maintain a civil and criminal proceedings at the same time. Both the proceedings, thus, can run parallel. The fact required to be proved for obtaining a decree in the civil suit and a judgment of conviction in the criminal proceedings may be overlapping but the standard of proof in a criminal case vis-a-vis a civil suit, indisputably is different. Whereas in a criminal case the prosecution is bound to prove the commission of the offence on the part of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, in a civil suit "preponderance of probability" would serve the purpose for obtaining a decree".
12. The brief and relevant facts for the filing of this case alongwith defence of the defendant has been mentioned at the outset. There is no dispute that the defendant has issued a valid CS (Comm) 137/2025 Page No. 10 of 14 MRS. DHATRI PANDEY VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA policy in the name of the deceased which was in existence on the day of the accident. I have gone through the WS of the defendant and the only reason for repudiation of the claim of the plaintiff by the defendant is that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident. The plaintiff relied upon the relevant documents alongwith copy of the insurance policy Ex.PW1/2. It is not in dispute that the deceased was the pillion rider of two wheeler vehicle which was hit by four wheeler vehicle at the time of accident and insured died due to the said accident. The defendant repudiated the claim and also admitted that the plaintiff made the claim vide Ex.PW1/5. DW1 during cross-examination deposed that:-
"It is correct that the defendant company deputed the investigator/IO to check the authenticity of claim. It is correct that the report of the investigator/IO has not been filed in the present case. It is wrong to suggest that the company has deliberately not filed such reports in order to conceal true facts. Last claim of the plaintiff was paid on 12.09.2025 approx. from Delhi Branch. Except Ex.DW1/4 there is no other document on record to show that policy holder died because he was under influence of alcohol. It is correct that under policy no.25486492, the claim was paid with accident benefit in September, 2025 (Vol. In the claim of policy no.254864926 the claimant has not submitted the medical document of Subharti Hospital of the insured and the claimant has concealed the facts qua the alcohol intoxication of the insured during the accident). It is correct that the defendant did not give any information regarding the aforesaid concealment of the facts to the plaintiff. It is correct that vide Ex.PW1/4, the plaintiff has submitted the document with the defendant company".
13. I have gone through the terms and conditions of the policy issued by the defendant in this case to compensate the policy holder with regard to accident claim. Section 10 (b) (I) of the policy which is already Ex.DW1/2 (Colly) contains the CS (Comm) 137/2025 Page No. 11 of 14 MRS. DHATRI PANDEY VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA provisions regarding additional sum with regard to disability and death to the insured. Admittedly, the accidental claim has been released to the nominee of the policy holder in other policy. It is not in dispute that the deceased was the pillion rider and his death was occurred due to the injuries suffered by him during accident as per the postmortem report. The reasons mentioned in Ex.DW1/3 are not sufficient for rejecting the claim of the plaintiff.
In view of the above discussions, it is categorically proved that the repudiation of the insurance claim of the plaintiff by the defendant vide letter dated 19.09.2022 was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.5,00,000/- towards the accidental claim. The issues no.(2) is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The ratio of the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the defendant is not applicable in the facts of the case.
Issue no.(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if so, at what rate and for what period ..........OPP.
14. The plaintiff has also claimed Rs.3,69,205/- towards pre suit interest @ 12% per annum as well as pendentelite and future interest. The interest is payable as per Section 34 CPC. For ready reference, Section 34 CPC is reproduced hereunder:
Section 34 CPC: Interest
(i)"Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum CS (Comm) 137/2025 Page No. 12 of 14 MRS. DHATRI PANDEY VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding 6% per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the court thinks fit.
(ii).Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed 6% per annum but shall not exceed the contractual rate or interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by national- ized banks in relation to commercial transactions.
Explanation (i) In this sub-section, "nationalized bank" means a corresponding new bank as defined in the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Un- dertakings) Act 1970.
Explanation (ii) For the purposes of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party in - curring the liability. Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest (on such principal sum) from the date of the decree to the date of the payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a sepa- rate suit therefore shall not lie". (Emphasis Supplied)
15. Section 34 CPC provides that plaintiff will be entitled the interest at the rate at which Court finds reasonable. For a general suit, the rate of interest prescribed is 6% and for commercial suit, the Parliament promulgates that rate of interest may increase from 6% to a rate which is found reasonable. Plaintiff is accordingly entitled to only the rate at which RBI has issued Circular for Commercial suits.
16. As far as the interest is concerned, rate applicable to Commercial transaction shall be payable. As per RBI notification dated 30.08.2022 issued vide Press Release no.2022-2023/794 whereby advisory issued by RBI to Schedule Commercial banks CS (Comm) 137/2025 Page No. 13 of 14 MRS. DHATRI PANDEY VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA of accepting deposit rates @ 9.05% per annum. In view of the above discussions, the plaintiff is entitled to pendente-lite and future interest @ 9% p.a. Issue no.(3) is disposed off accordingly.
Relief:
17. In view of the above, suit of plaintiff is accordingly decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs only) alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. The Plaintiff shall be also entitled to the costs of the suit.
18. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
19. The copies of the judgment be issued to all the parties to the dispute through Electronic Mail. Judgment be also uploaded on the server.
20. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance. Digitally signed by GORAKH GORAKH NATH PANDEY NATH PANDEY Date: 2026.02.16 15:41:12 +0530 Announced in the open court (GORAKH NATH PANDEY) th on 07 February, 2026. District Judge (Commercial Court) North East District: Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
CS (Comm) 137/2025 Page No. 14 of 14 MRS. DHATRI PANDEY VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA