Delhi District Court
Acting Through Its Authorised ... vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd on 31 August, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURVINDER PAL SINGH:
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 01 SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS - 1025/17
Calcom Vision Ltd.
(A company incorporated and
registered under the provision of
the Companies Act, 1956)
Having its Registered Office at :
C41, Defence Colony
New Delhi - 110024.
Acting through its Authorised Representative
Sh. Sandeep Pathak
..........Plaintiff
VERSUS
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
ICICI Bank Towers
Bandra Kurla Complex
Bandra East, Mumbai - 400 051.
Also at :
ICIC Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
NBCC Place, Second Floor
New Delhi - 110003.
..........Defendants
Date of Institution : 23.02.2005
Date of Arguments : 28.07.2017
Date of Judgment : 31.08.2017
CS - 1025/17 Calcom Vision Ltd. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. page 1 of 21
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 28,11,000/ with pendentelite interest and future interest and cost from defendant.
2. Adumbrated in brief the facts of the case of plaintiff are :
Plaintiff is a limited /BIFR company and is registered under SICA. Plaintiff runs the business of assembly of TV sets and plastic molding of which ICs are important components. The plaintiff company entered into Burglary Insurance Policy no. 4002/0000712 with the defendant insurance company for a total sum of Rs. 7.50 crores from 08.05.2002 to 07.05.2003 to cover its stock located at its factory at B16, SiteC, Surajpur Industrial Area, Surajpur - 201 306, endorsed on 07.06.2002 on payment of premium of Rs. 22,444/.
3. It is further averred that he factory premises of the plaintiff company including its Strong Room were closed and locked with seal on Saturday, the 21st December 2002 in the evening at 5.30 P.M. On 22.12.2002 it was noticed by the staff members that there was Burglary and the Burglars had stolen the goods by breaking the sealed lock of the Strong Room. This occurrence was reported to Police Station Surajpur and FIR was registered. This occurrence was also intimated to the CS - 1025/17 Calcom Vision Ltd. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. page 2 of 21 Defendant, Insurance Company which appointed Cunningham Lindsey International Pvt. Ltd. as Surveyor and the Surveyor carried out the detailed survey and investigation on 23.12.2002.
4. It is further averred that plaintiff company filed its claim for Burglary Insurance on 31.12.2002 quantifying the loss as Rs. 21,41,583/ alongwith the detailed statement and necessary documents, required for settling the claim. However, the defendant company repudiated the claim of the plaintiff company by letter dated 15.07.2003 on the pretence that the loss was caused due to theft and the same was registered by the police in FIR under Section 380 of IPC and on this basis rejected the Insurance claim of the plaintiff company. The Surveyor refused to provide the immediate Loss Advice on the plea that it is an internal communication with the Insurance Company, which was unreasonable and unprofessional. The plaintiff company wrote a letter dated 16.08.2003 to the Insurance Company seeking reconsideration of its decision and to settle the claim, however the defendant Insurance company refused reconsideration vide letter dated 01.09.2003.
5. It is further averred that plaintiff company suffered a loss on account of burglary at the tune of Rs. 21,41,583/ and the defendant company is liable to pay the same alongwith interest CS - 1025/17 Calcom Vision Ltd. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. page 3 of 21 @ 15% from the date of filing the insurance claim till the date of the institution of the present suit which amounts to Rs. 6,69,417, thus the defendant insurance company is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 28,11,000/ to the plaintiff company till the date of the institution of the present suit.
6. Defendant filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and submitted that no such burglary had taken place in the said premises of the plaintiff company on the said date as alleged by the plaintiff and that a simple theft had taken place in the said premises of the plaintiff company and accordingly the police registered a criminal case under Section 380/411 IPC under FIR No. 265/02 in respect to the said incident. It is further averred that on receipt of intimation about the loss from the plaintiff, the defendant deputed a Surveyor Cunningham Lindsey International Pvt. Ltd. to carry the survey and assess the loss. From the report dated 30.05.2003 of the Surveyor, it was established that it was a case of theft and not burglary and police also after investigation registered a case of theft accordingly. It was further revealed that stolen property was recovered by the Delhi Police from the culprits and after taking possession of the same, a chargesheet was filed against such culprits. It is submitted that plaintiff is aware that under the policy, the loss as a result of theft is not covered.
CS - 1025/17 Calcom Vision Ltd. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. page 4 of 21
7. It is further averred that the alleged certificate of C.A. quantifying the loss as Rs. 21,41,583/ was wrong and that the plaintiff has procured the said certificate in order to quantify the loss in the absence of any other proof to prove the quantity of the loss in the said incident. It is submitted that the insurance claim of the company was repudiated on genuine grounds as the cause of loss was not covered under the Policy in question. It is further submitted that the matter was properly reexamined and since it was a case of theft and not burglary as established from the record, the question of reconsideration of the claim otherwise did not arise and accordingly the plaintiff was communicated vide letter dated 01.09.2003 by the defendant. It is further submitted that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any such amount from the answering defendant.
8. Plaintiff filed replication in which it reiterated the facts of the plaint and denied the averments of written statement filed by the defendant.
9. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the suit has been signed, verified and instituted by a duly authorised person on behalf of the plaintiff? OPP.
CS - 1025/17 Calcom Vision Ltd. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. page 5 of 21
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 28,11,000/ from the defendant? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest? If so, at what amount, for what period and at what rate? OPP.
4. Relief.
10. In evidence, plaintiff examined Sh. S.K. Malik, the Director of the plaintiff company as PW1 vide affidavit Ex. PA. PW1 relied upon documents viz., (1) copy of Certificate of Incorporation of the company Ex. PW1/A; (2) true copy of the resolution Ex. PW1/1; (3) copy of Burglary Insurance policy as Ex. PW1/2; (4) Copy of FIR Ex. PW1/3; (5) copy of letter dated 24.12.2002 Ex. PW1/4; (6) Insurance claim documents Ex. PW1/5; (7) details of statement of missing items Ex. PW1/6A to 6I; (8) copies of cost sheets of ICs Ex. PW1/7A & 7B; (9) copy of letter of the Surveyor dated 13.03.2003 Ex. PW1/8; (10) copy of reply of the plaintiff dated 25.03.2003 Ex. PW1/9; (11) copy of another Surveyor Letter dated 27.03.2003 Ex. PW1/10; (12) Copy of Charge sheet dated 10.01.2003 Ex. PW1/11 forwarded alongwith copy of letter dated 04.04.2003 Ex. PW1/12; (13) copy of final Police report dated 03.04.2003 Ex. PW1/13; (14) copy of Surveyor's letter dated 08.04.2003 Ex. PW1/14; (15) copy of letter dated 14.04.2003 Ex. PW1/15; (16) copy of letter dated 18.05.2003 of plaintiff with copies of visitor CS - 1025/17 Calcom Vision Ltd. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. page 6 of 21 register as Ex. PW1/16; (17) copies of the visitors register from period 20.12.2002 to 23.12.2002 Ex. PW1/16 A and PW1/16 B; (18) copy of investigation report of the police Ex. PW1/17, (19) copy of letter dated 10.07.2003 as Ex. PW1/18 regarding settlement of claim under Burglary policy; (20) copy of letter dated 15.07.2003 of defendant/insurer to plaintiff as Ex. PW1/19; (21) copy of letter of plaintiff dated 24.07.2003 Ex. PW1/20; (22) Final report of Surveyor Ex. PW1/21 and receiving given by the defendant as Ex. PW1/21A; (23) copy of letter dated 06.08.2003 of plaintiff as Ex. PW1/22; (24) copy of letter dated 07.08.2003 of Surveyor as Ex. PW1/23; (25) reply dated 01.09.2003 of letter dated 16.08.2003 also as Ex. PW1/23; (26) positives of photographs as Ex. PW1/25 to PW1/31; (27) copy of notice dated 24.10.2009 as Ex. PW1/32. PW1 was crossexamined at length.
11. Plaintiff also got examined Sh. Yogesh Garg, Chartered Accountant as PW2 vide affidavit Ex. PW2/A who proved certificate Ex. PW2/1 dated 08.02.2005 with regard to the total value of items claimed to be stolen. PW2 was also cross examined at length.
12. Plaintiff also got examined Sh. Ravinder Gupta as PW3 vide affidavit Ex. PW3/A. PW3 was also crossexamined.
CS - 1025/17 Calcom Vision Ltd. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. page 7 of 21
13. Defendant got examined Mrs. Pooja Sharma, Manager Legal of defendant as DW1 vide affidavit Ex. DW1/A. DW1 also relied upon the report of Surveyor Ex. PW1/21. DW1 was cross examined.
14. I have heard arguments addressed by Sh. H.L. Narula, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff; Sh. Shoumik Mazumdar, Ld. proxy counsel for defendant; gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of both the parties and have given thoughts to the rival contentions put forth, pleadings of the parties, evidence and have also examined the record of the case.
15. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the following precedents :
(i) Lucas Indian Services Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal, 173(2010) DLT 438 ;
(ii) Ashok Kumar Garg Vs. Anil Kumar Gupta, 2009 (108) DRJ 360;
(iii) Siddharth Grover Vs. Kusma Devi & Ors., Vs. Dropti Devi & Ors., 197 (2013) DLT 769;
(iv) M/s. Sudhir Engineering Co. Vs. M/s. Nitco Roadways Ltd., 1995(2) Delhi Lawyer 11;
(v) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Public Type College, CS - 1025/17 Calcom Vision Ltd. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. page 8 of 21 II(2001) CPJ 26 (NC) ;
(vi) Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr. Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors., VII (2004) SLT 441 ;
(vii) Man Kaur (dead) by LRs Vs. Hartar Singh Sangha, 2010(10) SCC 512 ;
(viii) Avtar Singh & Ors. Vs. Gurdial Singh & Ors. ,(I) 2007 SLT 73 ;
(ix) M/s. Rudnap ExportImport Vs. Eastern Associates Co. & Ors., AIR 1984 DELHI 20 and
(x) PD Dinakaran Vs. Judges Inquiry Committee & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 380.
16. My issue wise findings are as under :
Findings on Issue no.1
1. Whether the suit has been signed, verified and instituted by a duly authorised person on behalf of the plaintiff? OPP.
17. Plaint has been signed, verified and instituted by Sh. Sandeep Pathak, employee of plaintiff company whose affidavit is accompanying the plaint. Ex. PW1/1 is the certified true copy of the extracts of the resolution contained in the Minutes of the meeting of Board of Directors of plaintiff company of date CS - 1025/17 Calcom Vision Ltd. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. page 9 of 21 31.01.2005 whereby the said Sh. Sandeep Pathak, Company Secretary has been authorised on behalf of the plaintiff company to sign and institute the suit against defendant corporation with respect to the stated burglary claim. In this fact of the matter, plaintiff company has been able to prove that the suit was signed, verified and instituted by duly authorised person on behalf of the plaintiff. Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant accordingly.
Findings on Issue no. 2
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 28,11,000/ from the defendant? OPP.
18. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 28,11,000/ from defendant Insurance company. The claim comprises of two components. Firstly, the claimed actual loss suffered by plaintiff company to the tune of Rs. 21,41,583/ on account of burglary having taken place at factory premises of plaintiff at Surajpur in the intervening night of 21.12.2002 and 22.12.2002, since the plaintiff company had entered into burglary insurance policy Ex. PW1/2 with defendant for Rs. 7.50 crores for the period from 08.05.2002 till 07.05.2003 to cover its stocks located at its factory in Surajpur on payment of premium of Rs.
CS - 1025/17 Calcom Vision Ltd. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. page 10 of 21 22,444/, also acknowledged by Ex. PW1/2. Secondly, Rs. 6,69,417/ is claimed as sum of interest @ 15% for period from date of filing of insurance claim till the date of institution of this suit from defendant insurance company by the plaintiff company.
19. In para 3 of reply on merits in Written Statement of defendant insurance company, the insurance policy, sum insured, period of risk as well as payment of requisite insurance premium are admitted facts. Even in terms of the averment of the Written Statement, the incident of loss of goods by the plaintiff company in the intervening night of 21.12.2002 and 22.12.2002 has been admitted but it has been averred that it was a simple theft which had taken place in the premises of the plaintiff company but no burglary had taken place. It is the averment of the insurance company that on receipt of intimation about the loss from the plaintiff, the defendant deputed a Surveyor to carry the survey and assess the loss. It is the defence of the defendant insurance company that in terms of the survey report dated 30.05.2003 Ex. PW1/21 of the surveyor it was a case of theft and not burglary and police also after investigation registered a case of theft. It also revealed that articles of stolen property was recovered by the police from the culprits and after taking possession of the same, the charge sheet was filed against CS - 1025/17 Calcom Vision Ltd. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. page 11 of 21 such culprits. It is the defence of the defendant insurance company that under the policy Ex. PW1/2, the loss as a result of theft was not covered and the loss as a result of burglary was covered. Accordingly, the laid insurance claim Ex. PW1/5 by plaintiff before defendant insurance company was rejected.
20. Adverting to final Surveyor report Ex. PW1/21 dated 30.05.2003, it embodies inter alia the facts that the incident of loss of goods had taken place at the insured premises of plaintiff company wherein inside the store but outside the strong room, it was noticed that bolt eye of the strong room door was cut from which strong room there had been loss of goods. Police had been informed. On checking of strong room, some of the racks were found empty. Statement of the Store Manager Sh. Ravinder Gupta PW3 was also recorded at the site. The observation of the Surveyor had been that the bolt eye of the strong room was found to be cut with a sharp tool whereas at the receipt door of the store, there was no mark of tampering and even outside the store in the side courtyard, the insured confirmed having located the lock of the strong room in locked condition. Along the rear side boundary wall outside the factory at the corner towards the road side, a heap of soil was found. It was assumed by the Surveyor that the miscreants had full knowledge of premises and it appeared that someone had CS - 1025/17 Calcom Vision Ltd. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. page 12 of 21 hid himself inside the store at the time of closure the previous evening and had cut the lock of the strong room but how such offender came out from the store, it was not certain. Empty racks inside the strong room were shown by concerned staff to the Surveyor and the inventory verification was conducted by the Surveyor to find out the extent of loss.
21. Ex. PW1/21 contains inter alia the assessment of the Surveyor with respect to the loss of the plaintiff and provides also that as per the claim form, the details of the missing items were as follows :
S. No. DESCRIPTION OF QTY. PCS. RATE AMOUNT
ITEM (RS.) (RS.)
1. IC TDA 8362 1161 231.12 268330
2. IC ZILOG 3000 91.13 273390
3. IC STV 2248 C 503 174.76 87904
4. IC FONDA 4 1350 83.34 112509
5. IC TDA 4665 11073 31.64 350350
6. IC OM 8361 7885 133.05 1049099
TOTAL 2141582
Also as per Ex. PW1/21, the items recovered were 269 no. IC's of Type no. 2248C and 35 no. TV kits. No mention of loss of 35 no. TV kits was made by the insured in their statement of loss. The Surveyor had found in the survey that the insured had a balance of only 361 pcs. of item IC TDA 8362 as on 20.12.2002; accordingly the reported loss of 1161 pcs. of CS - 1025/17 Calcom Vision Ltd. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. page 13 of 21 said items was not possible. On the probe of Surveyor, it was clarified by the insured that 1000 pcs. were issued on 19.12.2002 but were not physically moved out of the store; which submission was not found to be reasonable by the Surveyor as the material was neither heavy nor bulky requiring large space for storage in the production hall from where the requirement was received for consumption. The Surveyor assessed the loss as follows after verifying the stock records and after accounting for receipts and issues.
S. No. DESCRIPTION OF QTY. PCS. RATE AMOUNT
ITEM (RS.) (RS.)
1. IC STV 2248 503 174.76 87904
2. IC FONDA 4 1350 83.34 112509
3. IC TDA 4665 11073 31.64 350350
4. IC OM 8361 7885 133.05 1049099
TOTAL 1599862
22. In the case of Sudhir Engineering Company (supra), it was inter alia held that endorsement of an exhibit number on a document has no relation with its proof. Neither the marking of an exhibit number can be postponed till the document has been held proved; nor the document can be held to have been proved merely because it has been marked as an exhibit. The marking of a document as an exhibit, be it in any manner whatsoever either by use of alphabets or by use of numbers, is CS - 1025/17 Calcom Vision Ltd. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. page 14 of 21 only for the purpose of identification. While reading the record the parties and the Court should be able to know which was the document before the witness when it was deposing. Absence of putting an endorsement for the purpose of identification no sooner a document is placed before a witness would cause serious confusion as one would be left simply guessing or wondering which was the document to which the witness was referring to while deposing. Any practice contrary to above statement of law has no sanctity and cannot be permitted to prevail.
23. True that in the course of plaintiff evidence, neither negatives of the positives of photographs given exhibit as Ex. PW1/25 to PW1/31 were produced nor were earlier placed on record. So these positives of the photographs stand not proved. Section 58 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 postulates facts admitted need not be proved. So was also laid in the case of Avtar Singh & Ors. (supra). Ex. PW1/21, the report of Surveyor is admitted by the defendant and witness of defendant, DW1. Incident of loss of movable property of plaintiff is an admitted fact. Dispute remains only as to whether such loss was covered in the insurance policy or not.
CS - 1025/17 Calcom Vision Ltd. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. page 15 of 21
24. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Public Type College (supra), it had been held that in common parlance burglary is understood as theft. Therein, the machines were stolen from the premises of complainant by someone by opening locks of the door of the shop either by using duplicate keys or by using second set of keys which complainant had lost about a year back. In said case, the pronouncement in the case of Dino Services Ltd. Vs. Prudential Assurance Company Limited, (1989) 1 All ER 422 (CA) were relied upon wherein goods were stolen from the premises of the insured by thieves who had stolen the keys of the premises from the insured's car and then entered the premises at night by simply using the keys in the normal way to unlock various doors, without causing any physical damage to the locks or to the doors. The insurer repudiated the claim on the ground that loss or damage had to occasion from theft involving "forcible and violent" means of entry to the premises. In the context of the policy of insurance against theft from the premises by forcible and violent means of entry, the Court said that the word 'violent' is to be construed according to ordinary meaning and meant entry by use of any force which was accentuated or accompanied by a physical act which could properly be described as violent in nature and character. It was held in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Public Type College (supra) that in view CS - 1025/17 Calcom Vision Ltd. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. page 16 of 21 of the decision of the case of Dino Services Ltd. (supra), in the fact of the matter of said case, it could be said that entry to the premises was forcible and thus covered under the burglary policy and the repudiation of the policy by the insurer was wrong.
25. Ex. PW1/21 as elicited above inter alia embodies the ascertaining of the fact by Surveyor at site that the bolt eye of the strong room door was cut; though such strong room was situated inside the store. Fact of the matter is that it is proved on record that since bolt eye of the strong room door was cut, though situated inside the store, yet for entry to said strong room within the premises insured, the entry had been forcible or violent and in view of the decisions of the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Public Type College (supra) and Dino services Ltd. (supra), it can be safely said that entry to the part of premises insured was forcible and thus covered under the policy for loss.
26. The Burglary Insurance Policy Ex. PW1/2 in Part II of schedule inter alia embodies the exclusions including '3(i)(b) Loss or damage where any inmate or member of the insured's household or of his business staff or any other person lawfully in the CS - 1025/17 Calcom Vision Ltd. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. page 17 of 21 premises is concerned in the actual theft or damage to any of the articles or premises or where such loss or such damage has been expedited or any way assisted or brought about by any such person or persons
(c) Theft without actual forcible and violent entry and /or exit from the premises.'
27. For the defendant to be not liable in respect of the insurance claim of the plaintiff, in terms of the afore elicited exclusion clause, the loss or damage should have taken place whereby any inmate or member of the business staff or other person lawfully in the premises was concerned in the actual theft or damage. From the final report Ex. PW1/13 of the criminal investigating agency, it is not borne out that any such inmate or member of the business staff or any other person(s) lawfully in the premises was/were concerned for such losses of goods to plaintiff. Thereby the claim of insurance company for exclusion from liability from insurance claim is ill founded, without substance and stands not proved for want of any such fact proved on record.
28. Original books of accounts, store registers, invoices, trading and profit and loss account, balance sheets have not been produced in the course of plaintiff evidence. Originals of copies CS - 1025/17 Calcom Vision Ltd. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. page 18 of 21 Ex. PW1/6A to Ex. PW1/6I and Ex. PW1/7A and Ex. PW1/7B stand not proved. The Chartered Accountant PW2 in his cross examination elicited that he was not the appointed Chartered Accountant of the plaintiff company and had only inspected the record of the stock and account books etc. of the plaintiff company but did not carry out the physical inspection of the stock lying in the premises of the plaintiff company; though had issued certificate Ex. PW2/1 on the request of Sh. S.K. Malik, Director of plaintiff company.
29. Fact remains that the Surveyor report Ex. PW1/21 is an admitted document by the defendant and the Surveyor who gave the said report was duly appointed by defendant insurance company. Even witness of defendant, DW1 namely Ms. Pooja Sharma had admitted the Surveyor report Ex. PW1/21 with regard to the assessment of the loss. There is no escape for the defendant insurance company from Ex. PW1/21.
30. In the fact of the matter, the defendant insurance company is held liable for making payment of the sum of Rs. 15,99,862/, quantified by their own surveyor, to the plaintiff for the loss of goods suffered by them for which they had their entire premises insured, from wherein the loss occasioned by use of force/forcible entry in the strong room situated inside the store CS - 1025/17 Calcom Vision Ltd. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. page 19 of 21 of plaintiff. Plaintiff is held entitled for recovery of Rs. 15,99,862/ from defendant. Accordingly, issue no.2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Findings on Issue no.3
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest? If so, at what amount, for what period and at what rate? OPP.
31. Plaintiff was engaged in business / commercial purposes and the plaintiff company was working for gain. Plaintiff company had got its premises and stocks duly insured under policy Ex. PW1/2 where loss occasioned to plaintiff. Despite plaintiff being entitled for recovery of Rs. 15,99,862/ from defendant/insurer, the said sum was not paid to the plaintiff. In the fact of the matter, having regard to nature of the commercial transaction between the parties, the plaintiffs, finding it expedient, in the interest of justice, plaintiff is accordingly held entitled for interest @ 12% per annum on sum of Rs. 15,99,862/ from the date of filing of the suit till realisation from defendant. Issue no.3 is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Relief
32. In view of my findings with respect to issues no. 2 and 3, the CS - 1025/17 Calcom Vision Ltd. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. page 20 of 21 plaintiff is held entitled for recovery of Rs. 15,99,862/ with interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the suit till realisation alongwith proportionate costs from defendant. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (GURVINDER PAL SINGH) Court on 31.08.2017. Additional District Judge 01(SE), Saket Courts, New Delhi. (sm) CS - 1025/17 Calcom Vision Ltd. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. page 21 of 21