Delhi District Court
Venture Supply Chain Pvt. Ltd vs The New India Assurance Co Ltd on 3 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Sh. NIKHIL CHOPRA, DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT)-06, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
CS (COMM) 1372/2023
CNR No. DLCT01-014295-2023
M/s Venture Supply Chain Pvt. Ltd,
At: MHP-5950, Ground Floor, Block K-2,
KH. No.831, Mahipal Pur,
New Delhi-110037.
......Plaintiff
Versus
M/s The New India Assurance Co. Ltd,
At: 5C/1, 2nd Floor, Opposite Liberty Cinema,
New Rohtak Road,
New Delhi-110055.
....Defendant
Date of Institution : 18.10.2023
Final arguments : 25.03.2025
Date of decision : 03.04.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Judgment disposes off of a commercial suit for recovery of Rs.14,52,654/- towards non-payment of compensation against insured vehicle.
2. Shorn of avoidable details, the case of the plaintiff is that it is a company incorporated under Companies Act 1956, engaged in the business of transportation. It is averred that the defendant is an insurance company CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 1 of 32 engaged in the business of insurance of various kind of vehicles and allied services, including payment of compensation on account of loss of insured vehicle or mishappening. It is averred that a goods vehicle bearing registration no.NL-01-Q-3712 was insured with the defendant at Rs.11,85,840/- as insured value against a premium of Rs.51,001/-. A Policy bearing no.31130131200300002752 covering the risk of the said vehicle for the period 16.09.2020 till 15.09.2021 was also issued by the defendant.
3. On 21.08.2021, while the insured vehicle was being plied on NH-71, Bambar District, Rewari, Haryana, the driver detected smoke from the vehicle, and parked the vehicle at road side. He called for help, however, by the time Fire Brigade arrived, the vehicle was already burnt. It is averred that the plaintiff immediately informed the defendant about the said loss. M/s Innovative Insurance Surveyors & Loss were appointed for spot assessment of the loss. The authorized repairer of the defendant gave an estimate of Rs.25,44,039/-. It is further averred that despite having knowledge that the cost of repair was more than 200 percent of sum insured, the defendant did not make the payment, and in order not to pay the compensation, the defendant started claiming that the Fire did not occur due to short circuit. It is further averred that final report of the Surveyor has also not been shared by the defendant with CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 2 of 32 the plaintiff.
4. It is the plaintiff's case that as per regulations of IRDA, the insurer has to settle the claim within a period of 30 days on receipt of survey report and in case of any delay, reasons in writing are to be communicated to the insured. However, the defendant did not comply with the said regulation. It is further averred that the plaintiff is entitled to be indemnified against the losses suffered. The plaintiff also claims entitlement of interest @ 18% p.a. on the sum insured, which comes to Rs.2,66,814/-.
5. While claiming cause of action to have accrued on several dates, and further claiming that the defendant has its office at New Rohtak Road, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the plaintiff has claimed a money decree to the tune of Rs.14,52,654/- (inclusive of interest @ 18% per annum).
6. The defendants filed their written statement claiming the suit as baseless, frivolous and without any cause of action. It is averred that fire incident/loss to vehicle is not covered under any insured perils as per the terms and conditions of policy contract. It is further averred that the plaintiff filed claim through online mode on 28.08.2021 and the defendant, on 30.08.2021, deputed M/s Merit Insurance Surveyors for final survey and assessment of CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 3 of 32 loss as well as M/s Truth Lab for forensic investigation.
7. It is further averred that M/s Truth Labs Forensic submitted their report on 25.03.2022 concluding that the fire did not occur on account of electrical short circuit or any mechanical failure or collision with moving or stationary object, but probably by someone who has deliberately damaged the cabin and front two tyres with a motive. As such, the root cause of fire was human intervention. M/s Merit Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt Ltd. submitted assessment report dated 09.06.2022 assessing the loss of Rs.9,06,840/- on the basis of Net of Salvage basis.
8. It is further stated that M/s Merit Insurance Surveyors & loss assessors submitted an addendum on 17.08.2022 wherein they concurred with the findings of M/s Truth Lab Forensic Ltd, vide report dated 23.03.2022 and recommended for complete repudiation. As such, the defendant repudiated the claim on the basis of findings of M/s Truth Lab Forensic Ltd dated 23.03.2022 and M/s Merit Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors dated 17.08.2022. The said decision was also conveyed to the plaintiff vide letter dated 19.08.2022, dispatched vide receipt dated 21.09.2022.
9. It is further averred that the contract between the CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 4 of 32 parties is based on the principle of utmost good faith and the plaintiff by making misrepresentations, suppression and concealment of fact in respect of fire incident dated 21.08.2021 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, thereby making the contract void and insured claimed not admissible and in view of the above, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
10. The plaintiff filed replication reiterating its stand as mentioned in the plaint while denying the contents of written statement.
11. As transpires from the record, following issues were framed on 17.12.2024:-
"i. Whether the insured vehicle bearing registration no.NL-01-Q-3712, insured by the defendant vide policy bearing no.31130131200300002752, suffered damaged on account of short circuit of the wires/an involuntary act/act not attributable to the plaintiff and if so its effect. OPP ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the amount of Rs.14,52,654/- under the insurance policy. OPP iii. Whether the plaintiff has misrepresented to the defendant qua the cause of the accident and if so its effect. OPD iv. Whether the vehicle was damaged on account of a voluntary act/negligence on the part of the plaintiff/its agents/employees and if so its effect. OPD v. Whether no cause of action as accrued to the plaintiff for filing the present suit. OPD vi. Whether the suit is not maintainable for the reasons as CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 5 of 32 mentioned in the Written Statement. OPD vii. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit. OPD viii. Whether the damage due to fire is not a 'fire accident' in terms of insurance policy and if so its effect. OPD ix. Relief.
12. The plaintiff examined it authorized representative Sh. Subhash Kumar as PW-1, who deposed through affidavit on the lines of the plaint. He also tendered the following documents:-
1. Authority Letter as Ex. PW-1/1;
2. Copy of Memorandum of Association as Ex.PW-1/2 (Colly.);
3. Board Resolution as Ex PW-1/3;
4. Copy of Policy Schedule cum Certificate of Insurance as Ex. PW-1/4;
5. Copy of Certificate of Registration as Ex. PW-1/5
6. Copy of Permit (Form N.P.G.C) as Ex. PW-1/6.
7. Copy of Certificate of Fitness as Ex.PW-1/7.
8. Copy of DD Entry dated 23.08.2021 as Ex.PW-1/8.
9. Copy of Entry by Fire Department as Ex.PW-1/9.
10. Copy of Claim Form as Ex.PW-1/10.
11. Copy of Driving License of driver as Ex.PW-1/11.
12. Photographs of damaged vehicle as Ex.PW-1/12 (colly).
13. Repair Estimate (Estimation Customer Copy) as Ex.PW-1/13.
14. Copy of Notice as Ex.PW-1/14 and its dispatch record as Ex.PW-1/15.
CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 6 of 32
13. During cross examination, PW-1 stated that he joined the plaintiff company in February, 2022 and used to look after the maintenance and insurance work of Company which includes Insurance Claims also. He further stated that earlier the company had approx. 1,400 vehicles, which has now reduced to approx. 450 vehicles.
14. During further cross examination, PW-1 stated that they were given only two page Policy and the terms and conditions were not supplied. PW-1 was shown Page No.2 of Ex.PW-1/4 wherein it is mentioned that the terms and conditions are available on the website of Insurance Company. He further stated that Claim Form Ex.PW-1/10 was submitted under the signatures of Mr. Faizan, Director of the Company. After seeing portion A to A1 of Ex.PW-1/10, he admitted that as per the same, in case of any fraud/concealment, the policy would lapse.
15. During further cross examination, he stated that prior to the present case, the claims under the Policy from the defendant Insurance Company have also been applied for and obtained. He further stated that the Salvage and Policy Access is deducted from the amount payable under the said claims. He further stated that the Driver-Shehzad has left the services of the plaintiff company around a year back. He further stated that the plaintiff did not receive any intimation as to repudiation of the claim.
CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 7 of 32
16. During further cross examination, the witness was confronted with e-mail dated 10.07.2023-Ex.PW-1/D1. He stated that said e-mail must have been received by the plaintiff. He further stated the said e-mail contains an at- tachment, however, without looking at the e-mail. During further cross examination, PW-1 denied that the defendant had already sent the letter of repudiation dated 19.08.2022 vide speed post and that a copy thereof was also supplied as an attachment to e-mail dated 10.07.2023. He further denied that the plaintiff has wrongfully claimed that it was not informed about the repudiation of its claim. He admitted that he was not present at the time of the fire incident in question. He denied that the driver and the owner, in connivance with each other, have proceeded to file a false claim of insurance or that the fire incident was not accidental. He further denied that the fire incident was attributable to the acts and omissions of the driver or that the insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim. He further denied that plaintiff has wrongfully claimed the benefit under the insurance policy despite the fact that the fire was not accidental.
17. The defendants examined Sh. Sameer Kumar Kirti, Deputy Director, Truth Labs Forensic Services, Safdarjung Enclave as DW-1, who deposed through affidavit CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 8 of 32 Ex.DW-1/A on the lines of their pleadings.
18. During cross examination, DW-1 stated that there is a standard procedure for collecting samples, but the same has not been filed on record and volunteered that the same is mentioned in their report. He denied that the samples are to be collected within the period of 48-72 hours of the occurrence. He further stated that he cannot give the exact date of collection of sample for the burnt vehicle in question, however, volunteered that it might be 21.10.2021. He further expressed his inability to give name of representative of plaintiff company who was present at the time of collection of samples. He further stated that no presence of any independent witness/ person was marked while collecting samples, nor any signatures or acknowledgment was obtained from any independent person while taking the samples. He denied that they did not follow the standard procedure while taking samples or that no precautions were taken. He further denied that it is not mentioned in the report as to in what manner samples were taken or they were not sealed.
19. During further cross examination, DW-1 stated that at the time of collection of samples, the truck was parked in the parking lot of the plaintiff company in Gurugram, which is at a distance of about 40-45 km from the place of fire. He further stated that the vehicle in question was CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 9 of 32 lying in open without any coverage, at the time of taking samples and the Sample testing was got done by them from third parties as they do not have their our own testing lab. He admitted that in their report, there is no mention of the name or agency or lab from which the samples were got examined. He admitted that short circuit can cause fire in the vehicle. He stated that no data or photographs were shared by the Spot Surveyor with them.
20. During further cross examination, DW-1 stated that he does not know if the Spot Surveyor or other surveyor had already examined the vehicle prior to their examination. He further stated that no investigation or inquiry was made by them from any independent person qua the fire incident in the truck.
21. On being asked by the Court that what tests were conducted in respect of finding the cause of the fire, he stated that Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry Test was conducted, which is a decisive test and its accuracy is to the tune of 99%.
22. During further cross examination, he stated that as per his report dated 08.03.2022, the incident took place on 21.08.2021, the samples were collected on 21.10.2021 i.e. after two months and the vehicle was in the yard of the plaintiff company itself. He further stated that due to CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 10 of 32 presence of the hydrocarbons, the report to the effect of voluntary damage/ neglect has been arrived at. He further stated that the fuel i.e. petrol or diesel also contain hydrocarbons. He admitted that the kind of hydrocarbons found/ traced is the same which are normally the compo- nent of the fuel i.e. petrol/ diesel. He further stated that the fire had started from the cabin where the driver sits and that the engine is placed beneath the cabin. He further stated that apart from the fuel tank, the engine is the com- ponent where the fuel is available in a high quantity. He further stated that the report is on the basis that the hydro- carbons found in the cabin without any damage to the lay- ers of metal in between and the photographs in this respect to the effect that there is no damage to the floor of the cabin are placed on record at point 4.8 at internal page no. 7/8 of the report.
23. During further cross examination, DW-1 admitted that for the purposes of making provision for the gear handle, the brake paddle, the clutch paddle and the acceler- ator there are openings in the floor and that these are placed at different portions of the floor. He further stated that apart of the above, there are other openings in the cabin including the floor for the purposes of provisions for steering wheel, the cables etc, and that these are situated at different portions of the cabin. He admitted that the placement of the engine is immediately CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 11 of 32 below the gear box which is usually towards the center of the cabin.
24. He denied that in the event of any damage to the gear box, there is a spill over or leakage of oil/ fuel inside the cabin stating that it is for the reason that generally the pipes carrying the fuel are of plastics which would melt away in case of the fire. He further stated that he has ex- amined other cases on fire breaking out in the vehicles. He further stated that it is not possible that in case of engine catching fire, traces of hydrocarbons are found in the body/ cavity of the vehicle and it is on the basis of fire pattern that the above answer is being given. He further stated that it is possible that on account of the fire in engine, there is a spill over of gear oil inside the cabin. He further stated that the gear oil stands stored in the gear box i.e. with in the engine which is usually placed under the cabin. He further stated that even the gear oil contains hydrocarbons and in the upholstery, there are materials which may contain hydrocarbons. He further stated that such hydrocarbons are not distinguishable from the one which are reported by M/s. Lucid Laboratories.
25. The defendants examined its Sh. Vinod Kumar, Deputy Manager/AR for the defendant as DW-2, who CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 12 of 32 deposed through affidavit Ex.DW-1/A on the lines of their pleadings.
26. During cross examination, DW-2 stated that Ex.DW2/D1 is his authorization letter. He stated that he had not personally dealt with the fire claim till its repudiation and cannot give the name of the person who dealt with this fire claim. He volunteered that he might have retired from the service as on date. He further stated that as per IRDA Regulations, only Surveyor is authorized to do the investigations in such claims. He further stated that he is am not aware of the details of the contents of the Surveyor report. He also stated that before taking the addendum report from the Surveyor, the vehicle was got inspected, however, he could not give the date.
27. During further cross examination, DW-2 stated that in the Surveyor report dated 09.06.2022, the defendant noted that it was not mentioned that the fire was due to hu- man intervention. He volunteered that the surveyor report is only for assessing the loss caused and not for assessing the nature of loss. He admitted that the communication between the defendant company and surveyor has not been placed on record. He further stated that the report of M/s Truth Lab was received by the defendant company after receiving the report of the surveyor. He further stated that he cannot show any regulation of IRDA whereby the CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 13 of 32 Insurance Company can appoint investigator. He further stated that as per IRDA regulation, 30 days is the time prescribed for submission of report by surveyor, subject to completion of formalities. He admitted that the report of the surveyor was not received in time as per IRDA regulations and that the Surveyor in his report dated 09.06.2022 has admitted the liability of defendant company. He volunteered that the same was subject to policy terms and conditions.
28. During further cross examination, DW-2 stated that he is not aware if the fire in vehicle was investigated by police and fire department. He further stated that the de- fendant never reported to police or fire department to investigate the cause of fire in the vehicle in question. He denied that the proper investigation was done by police and fire department wherein presence of hydrocarbons were not noticed. He further stated that the samples from the burnt vehicle were not collected in my presence. He further stated that except for the investigation report, the defendant did not have any document to show that the fire was initiated by the plaintiff. He further stated that he does not remember if any previous claim was lodged with the defendant company, with respect to the vehicle in question. He further stated that they are aware of the financial position of the plaintiff company and about their business. He admitted that the cause of fire is not CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 14 of 32 mentioned in the report of surveyor.
29. During further cross examination, DW-2 stated that the repudiation letter dated 19.08.2022 was dispatched through post on 21.09.2022. He denied that the report of M/s. Truth Lab has been rejected by different Court in various cases or that the claim is wrongly rejected by the defendant with a clear intention not to pay the claim even after receiving the surveyor's report to pay the claim.
30. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.
31. Main contentions of the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff are:-
(i) The vehicle bearing no.NL-01-Q-3712 was duly insured against all accidents and the defendant has wrongfully denied the benefits of the insurance policy on account of the fire accident which has rendered the vehicle as totally unrepairable.
(ii) The initial survey report dated 09.06.2022 had duly assessed the damage and has recommended the payment of Rs.9,06,840/-.However, in order to deny the rightful claim of the plaintiff, the defendant company has wrongfully engaged M/s Truth Lab Forensic Ltd, who has wrongfully submitted a finding in their report dated 23.03.2022 to the effect that the root cause of fire was human intervention. The said report is not based on facts, and is a mere guesswork.
(iii) The plaintiff has duly proved the occurrence by means of Rojnamcha report Ex.PW-1/8, intimation to Fire Brigade-Ex.PW-1/9, the vehicle CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 15 of 32 claim timely submitted with the defendant as Ex.PW-1/10. The defendant, however, did not timely process the claim of the plaintiff and instead had belatedly engaged M/s Truth Lab Forensic Ltd for the purposes of denying the lawful claim of the plaintiff.
(iv) The report being relied upon by the defendant is a manipulated one and it is not based on facts and has only been belatedly procured for denying lawful claim of the plaintiff.
(v) The expert witness DW-1 has clearly admitted that the presence of hydrocarbons can be due to spill over of oil in the cabin or even burning of upholstery. The statement of DW-1 in cross examination leaves no doubt that the accident actually happened without any human intervention as alleged in the report.
(vi) The plaintiff gave notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC to the defendant for providing certain documents, but the defendants did not provide the documents.
(vii) The plaintiff is entitled to the insured amount together with the interest thereon.
32. Main contentions of the learned counsel for the defendants are:-
(i) The claim is vexatious and the fire incident is stage managed inasmuch as, there was no reason for the vehicle being plied at a much longer and unusual route, rather than choosing a proper and viable route for the destination. The plaintiff has failed to explain as to why was its vehicle plying on such a longer route, and the said fact also indicates that the incident was stage managed.
(ii) The spot inspection report dated 23.08.2021 and the Survey Report dated 09.06.2022 cannot be treated as any admission of liability as the report of M/s Truth Lab Forensic Ltd has clearly indicated that the incident has occurred on account of human CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 16 of 32 intervention.
(iii) The Insurance Company has rightfully repudiated the claim of the plaintiff as there is fraud played by the plaintiff and the plaintiff's own voluntary act could not be ruled out, given the reasons recorded in the report submitted by M/s Truth Lab Forensic Ltd.
(iv) The plaintiff has failed to examine the driver in order to avoid disclosure of facts.
(v) The expert witness examined by the defendant has categorically asserted the presence of several chemical compounds which indicate extraneous reasons of fire and the report is also clear on the aspect of short circuit as it has come with evidence that no short circuit has taken place.
(vi) There are other reasons recorded in the report which lead to suspicion as to the incident and thus, the claim has been rightfully repudiated.
(vii) Ld. Counsel for defendant has also relied upon United India Insurance Co. Vs. Raghav Impact decided by NCDRC, Delhi on 10.10.2024.
33. Time now to deal with the issues. Issues nos.1, 2, 4 and 9 are taken up first being inter-connected, which is reproduced as under:-
"Issue No.1 Whether the insured vehicle bearing registration no.NL-01-Q-3712, insured by the defendant vide policy bearing no.31130131200300002752, suffered damaged on account of short circuit of the wires/an involuntary act/act not attributable to the plaintiff and if so its effect. OPP Issue no.2-Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the amount of Rs.14,52,654/- under the insurance policy. OPP Issue no.4-Whether the vehicle was damaged on account of a voluntary act/negligence on the part of the plaintiff/ CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 17 of 32 its agents/employees and if so its effect. OPD Issue No.8-Whether the damage due to fire is not a 'fire accident' in terms of insurance policy and if so its effect. OPD"
34. The fire incident itself is not in question. It is the cause of fire which is the bone of contention between the parties. The plaintiff's case is that on 21.08.2021 while the vehicle was being plied on NH-71, near Bambar District, Rewari, Haryana, the driver has observed smoke emanating from the engine and called for help. However, before the fire brigade could have arrived, the vehicle stood severely damaged in fire. The defendant, on the other hand, have been stressing on the ground that the fire was on account of an voluntary act which stands corroborated from the presence of chemical compounds and other factors, as have been considered by the expert- M/s Truth Lab Forensic Ltd.
35. The plaintiff has proved the incident by means of Rojnamcha report, the extract from the records of the Fire Brigade office and also the submission of the its claim by means of Ex.PW-1/8, Ex.PW-1/9 and Ex.PW-1/10 respectively. The plaintiff has further placed on record Spot Inspection Report dated 23.08.2021. Although the same has not been exhibited, its veracity has never been challenged by the defendant either in his written statement or during the cross examination or even subsequently. The CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 18 of 32 plaintiff has also placed on record photographs of the vehicle Ex.PW-1/12 (colly).
36. It has been contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff that it is an open and shut case of vehicle damaged in fire accident on account of mechanical failure/electric short circuit and initial survey report dated 09.06.2022 also has assessed the loss at Rs.9,06,840/-. According to the plaintiff, the defendant procured the report from M/s Truth Lab Forensic Ltd in order to deny the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant side have aggressively opposed the claim of the plaintiff while relying upon the report dated 23.03.2022 issued by M/s Truth Lab Forensic Ltd. Even though the said report has not been exhibited during the evidence of the defendant, the same is being considered as a document in evidence for determination of the question involved, and having regard to the fact that the entire testimony of DW-1 is based on the said document.
37. Before proceeding further, a reference to the certain portions of Spot inspection report dated 23.08.2021, report of Surveyor dated 09.06.2022 and report of M/s Truth Lab Forensic Ltd dated 23.03.2022 seems to be desirable:-
Spot Inspection Report dated 23.08.2021 ......
CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 19 of 32 Details of Spot Damages SL.No. Party/AssemblyDetails of Damages 1 CABIN Complete cabin badly ASSEMBLY burnt, front panel, center grill, cowl, shield badly burnt, both head lights & turn lights burnt due to heat, cabin with both doors badly burnt, roof burnt, instrument panel burnt, inner floor heated, cabin back wall heated, both mirrors broken due to heat, seats burnt, front bumper burnt, air Cleaner burnt.
2 GLASSES Both wind screen glasses, both doors glasses & cabin glasses broken due to heat.
3 STEERING Steering wheel & steering
ASSEMBLY rod badly burnt, steering
box burnt due to excessive
heat.
4 CHASSIS FRAME Chassis frame alongwith
cross members affected due
to excessive heat.
5 COOLING Intercooler & radiator
SYSTEM assembly badly burnt,
radiator frame burnt,
radiator tank burnt, inter
cooler pipe heated, fan
assembly burnt, viscous
assembly, water and pump
& thermostat heated.
6 SUSPENSION Front axle badly burnt due
to heat, leaf spring
assembly damaged with
hangers & shackles, 'U'
bolts and 'C' bolts bent due
to heat, tie rod, stub axle
heated, both tyres & wheel
rims affected due to
excessive heat, drag link,
pitman arm & wheel hub
both side burnt.
7 ELECTRICALS Complete cabin wiring
burnt due to heat, self
alternator & batteries burnt
CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 20 of 32
due to heat.
8 MECHANICAL Complete engine assembly,
ASSEMBLIES clutch housing & gear box
assembly burnt/heated, fuel
injection pump, fly wheel
& turbo heated, properller
shaft heated, exhaust elbow
heated.
9 MISC ITEMS Mechanical wiring burnt,
air tanks heated, pedal
assembly burnt, meters
with meter plate,
combination switch burnt
due to excessive heat,
diesel tank affected due to
excessive heat.
10 LOAD BODY Load body badly main wall
burnt due to heat, metal
sheets & angels heated,
floor heated due to
excessive heat.
Extract from Final Motor Survey Report dated 09.06.2022 .........
11. RECOMMENDATION:
Since the IDV of the said vehicle is Rs.11,85,840/-, it is not economical to get the vehicle repair considering its high cost of repair charges which may increase after dismantling the same.
Accordingly, liability of the company on total loss basis was calculated with following details:
INSURER'S LIABILITY ON TOTAL LOSS BASIS:-
IDV of the vehicle 1,185,840.00
Less Excess clause 1,500.00
Less Additional excess clause 2,500
___________
1,181,840.00
Under this settlement garage charges and advertisement charges would further increase the liability of the company to much more extent. In order to avoid all overhead expenses. The matter was also discussed with the competent Authority and I was instructed to explore for the possibility of the settlement of the claim on Net of Salvage basis.
CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 21 of 32 The said vehicle was shown to various dealers and got maximum offer of Rs.2,75,000/- without R.C. (quotation enclosed). As such the liability of the company of Net of Salvage Basis was calculated with following details:-
INSURER'S LIABILITY ON NET OF SALVAGE BASIS:-
IDV of the vehicle 1,185,840.00
Less Salavage value of damaged
vehicle (without RC) 1,500.00
_________
910,840.00
Less excess clause 1,500.00
Less Additional excess clause 2,500.00
__________
906,840.00
Extract from Report of M/s Truth Lab Forensic Ltd. ........
4.8 The interiors of the cabin such as upholstery, seats, steering column, dashboard and accessories etc were found completely burnt and damaged. Large quantity of debris was found inside the cabin.
.....
5.1.1 Results of forensic chemical analysis using GC-MS technique The burnt debris samples collected from the affected truck were subjected to GC-MS analysis. The results of the chemical analysis revealed the presence of a wide range of straight chain hydrocarbons such a Tridecane; Hexadecane; Nonadecane; Undecane; and derivatives such as Undecane, 5,7-dimethly-; Nonane, 4,5 dimethyl-; Decane, 2,36- trimethly-; Eicosane, 2-methyl; Heptane, 2,4-dimethly-; Heptane, 5-ethyl-2-methyl-; Hexane, 2,3,5 trimethyl etc. in the samples collected from the cabin of the truck. The presence of these compounds indicate the use of extraneously induced fire accelerants for ignition and initiation of fire. (A copy of the GC-MS analysis report is enclosed).
.......
7. Conclusions Based on a thorough and in-depth inspection of the fire CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 22 of 32 affected truck followed by search, identification, collection and analysis of physical, oral and documentary evidence, collection of circumstantial evidence from the persons associated with the incident, it is concluded that the fire incident that occurred in BharatBenz Truck bearing registration no.NL-01Q-3712 at NH-71, road, Bambar Village, near NH 71 Fuel station, Haryana on 21st August, 2021 at around 01:30-02:00 hours was:
7.1 not on account of electrical short circuit; 7.2 not on account of mechanical related failures, 7.3 not on account of accidental intimation of fire after collision with any moving or stationary object; 7.4 but, most probably on account of initiation of fire inside the truck cabin by using externally induced fire accelerants by someone who had the means, motive and opportunity to do so and it eventually damaged the cabin and front two tyres only because of deliberate attempt. 7.5 Therefore, the root cause of fire was due to human intervention.
38. The plaintiff side has contended that as is clear from the spot inspection report, there had been almost complete damage to the Cabin including engine, the wiring and interiors of the Cabin and as such the defendant side cannot be heard to say that as per the report of the Truth Lab, the wires were intact. Attention of the Court has also been invited towards the specific recording in the spot inspection report that complete cabin wiring stood burnt and that the Gear Box also stood damaged. The plaintiff side has impressed upon the Court that there is no suggestion in the Spot Inspection Report that the fire was due to human intervention and it is only subsequently the report has been procured M/s Truth Lab Forensic Ltd. for denying the claim of the plaintiff.
CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 23 of 32
39. The defendant side, on the other hand, has stressed upon the arguments that as per the specimen collected by the Lab, the Cabin of the vehicle was found to be having traces of chemical compounds which are suggestive of the fact that the fire initiated in the Cabin, which in itself implies that it was induced by some human intervention or may also possibly have occurred on account of human neglect/ omission. In either of the case, the defendant, it is contended, would not be liable for any damages.
40. Coming to the question that lies at the center of the dispute i.e. whether the fire was on account of human intervention or not. There is no direct evidence from either of the sides. While the plaintiff side has relied upon information to Police, Fire Brigade and the Spot Inspection Report which is nearest in time from the date of accident and comprehensively records the extent of damages, the defendant presses reliance upon the Lab Report from the Truth Lab.
41. The defendant side has contended that the plaintiff did not examine the Driver in order to avoid his cross-
examination. The plaintiff, on the other hand, has stated that the Driver had already left the services and it is not mandatory for the plaintiff to examine him, considering that the suit is based on documents and insurance policy/ CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 24 of 32 coverage.
42. As far as the plaintiff's argument as to the Driver of the plaintiff had been withheld from being examined as a witness is concerned, the Court cannot subscribe to the said argument in as much as the non-examination of the driver from the plaintiff's side cannot be either treated as fatal to the plaintiff's claim or would call for any adverse inference as the defence is entirely based on the scientific evidence i.e. Lab's Report. By all means, given the defendant's stand, the testimony of the driver would not have factored in as any conclusive evidence. At best, his non-examination can be termed as inconsequential in the facts and circumstances of the case. Even the defendant side had tried summoning him, but could not trace his whereabouts or secure his presence as a witness.
43. Coming to the plaintiff's submission as to belated procurements of the Lab's Report. True that the samples were collected later, the Report cannot be brushed aside for the reasons of delay in scientific examination. The plaintiff side has not been able to show that the delay in scientific examination has occasioned any injury to the plaintiff.
44. Turning now to the core question as to whether the fire incident had occurred on account of human CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 25 of 32 intervention/ neglect. As observed above, there is no direct evidence as to what had transpired on the date of incident. The Court, thus, is compelled to examine the circumstances involved, and the testimonies of the witnesses.
45. PW-1's assertion in itself cannot be regarded to be conclusive as the incident did not occur in his presence. However, the report to the police, calling of the fire brigade etc. which stand proved by means of the documents- Ex.PW1/8 and Ex.PW1/9, do indicate and generate a presumption that it was a fire accident without any human intervention/ neglect.
46. The report from the M/s Truth Labs Forensic Ltd mentions various grounds of suspicion, but defendant side has not cross-examined the witnesses on these aspects. The Scope of inquiry thus, is restricted to the question as to whether the presence of certain hydrocarbons/ chemical compounds in the cabin would prove fire on account of human intervention, or even neglect.
47. Attention of the Court is invited towards the cross-
examination of DW-1. For the purpose of quick reference, the relevant portion of the cross-examination of DW-1 is re-produced as under:-
CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 26 of 32 "It is because of the presence of the hydrocarbons that the report to the effect of voluntary damage/ neglect has been arrived at. It is also correct that the fuel i.e. petrol or diesel also contain hydrocar- bons. It is correct that the kind of hydrocarbons found/ traced is the same which is normally a com- ponent of the fuel i.e. petrol/ diesel.
The fire had started from the cabin where the driver sits. It is also correct that the engine is placed be- neath the cabin. It is also correct that apart from the fuel tank, the engine is the component where the fuel is available in a high quantity. The report is on the basis that the hydrocarbons were found in the cabin without any damage to the layers of metal in between. The photographs in this respect to the effect that there is no damage to the floor of the cabin are placed on record along with the report.
The photographs are placed at point 4.8 at internal page no. 7/8 of the report. It is correct that for the purposes of making provision for the gear handle, the brake paddle, the clutch paddle and the acceler- ator there are openings in the floor. It is also correct that these are placed at different portions of the floor. It is also correct that apart of the above, there are other openings in the cabin including the floor for the purposes of provisions for steering wheel, the cables etc. It is correct that these as well are at different portions of the cabin. It is correct that the placement of the engine is immediately below the gear box which is usually towards the center of the cabin.
Question: Is it possible that in the event of any damage to the gear box, there is a spill over or leak- age of oil/ fuel inside the cabin?
Answer: No. It is for the reason that generally the pipes carrying the fuel are of plastics which would melt away in case of the fire.
I have examined other cases on fire breaking out in the vehicles. It is not possible that in case of engine catching fire, traces of hydrocarbons are found in the body/ cavity of the vehicle.
CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 27 of 32 It is on the basis of fire pattern that the above an- swer is being given.
Question: Is it possible that on account of the fire in engine, there is a spill over of gear oil inside the cabin?
Answer: Yes.
It is correct that the gear oil stands stored in the gear box i.e. with in the engine which is usually placed under the cabin. It is correct that even the gear oil contains hydrocarbons.
It is correct that in the upholstery, there are materials which may contain hydrocarbons. It is correct that such hydrocarbons are not distinguishable from the one which are reported by M/s. Lucid Laboratories."
48. The Lab Report from M/s Truth Lab Forensic Ltd. is at best an opinion. Although, the defence has been predominantly built around the narrative of human intervention, there is nothing on record which could concretize the opinion into a credible piece of evidence. As an opinion, the Lab Report lacks the kind of probative strength, as much is required for the purpose of Courts coming to a definite conclusion as to the human intervention.
49. Considering the DW-1's cross-examination, the presence of hydrocarbons and the chemical components named in the report can also be due to the combustion of upholstery and the spill over of the gear oil. When read holistically, the cross-examination renders the narration of CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 28 of 32 the defence as even more doubtful. It was upon the defendant to bring a clear and convincing evidence of human intervention with Defendant's sole reliance on the report without there being any corroboration from any other corner, things does not add up to even a strong possibility of human intervention. The defence seeks its validation from the report, but the same is not proselytized into a proof of human intervention. Resultantly, the Courts opinion, rightfully veers towards holding that the defendant had not been able to prove the human intervention into fire incident.
50. The plaintiff's evidence, on the contrary, suffices the test of pre-ponderance of probabilities which is the test for proof in civil proceedings. The test has been recently revisted by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Smt. Amrit Pal Kuar Vs. Harcharan Singh Josh [314(2024) Delhi Law Times 543]. The Hon'ble High Court held as under:-
59...... The settled position in law qua standard of proof concerninng civil cases is the preponderance of probablity, meaning thereby, that the evidence which is of greater weightage or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it, is admitted and preferred."
51. Going by the degree of preponderance of probabilities, the incident appears to be an accident CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 29 of 32 without any human intervention. There is no evidence as to any omission/ neglect as well.
52. Reliance placed on "United India Insurance Co. Vs. Raghav Impact" does not advance the case of the plaintiff in as much as the case was held established on the facts and admissions. The ratio of the said judgment cannot be applied in the present case.
53. The issues no. 1, 2, 4 and 8 are, accordingly, decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
54. Issues no. 3, 5, 6 and 7 are taken up together.
" iii. Whether the plaintiff has misrepresented to the defendant qua the cause of the accident and if so its effect. OPD v. Whether no cause of action as accrued to the plaintiff for filing the present suit. OPD vi. Whether the suit is not maintainable for the reasons as mentioned in the Written Statement. OPD vii. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit. OPD viii. Whether the damage due to fire is not a 'fire accident' in terms of insurance policy and if so its effect. OPD"
55. The onus to prove the said issues were placed on the defendant. Neither any evidence has been led, nor are the issues pressed during the arguments. The issues no. 3, 5, 6, CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 30 of 32 and 7 are, accordingly, disposed off as not pressed.
Issue No.9 - Relief.
56. The plaintiff has placed on record the Spot Inspection Report. The damages have been assessed to be Rs.9,06,840/-. Having regard to the findings under issues no. 1, 2, 4 and 8, the plaintiff is held entitled to the said amount.
57. As regards interest, the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of incident i.e. 21.08.2021 till the actual date of realization/ payment seems to be just and appropriate in the facts and circumstances.
58. As a sequel to the findings above, the plaintiff is held entitled to a money decree in the sum of Rs.9,06,840/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of incident i.e. 21.08.2021 till the actual realization.
59. The defendant is directed to make the payment of the entire decretal amount within three months from today.
60. Decreed with costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. \
61. File be consigned to the record room after due CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 31 of 32 Digitally signed by NIKHIL compliance. NIKHIL CHOPRA CHOPRA Date:
Dictated and Announced today 2025.04.04 17:29:00 i.e. on 03rd of April, 2025 +0530 in the open Court (NIKHIL CHOPRA) District Judge (Commercial Court-06) Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi 03.04.2025 CS (COMM) 1372/23 Venture Supply Chain P Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Page no. 32 of 32