Delhi District Court
Jyoli Travels vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 30 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER : NORTH DISTRICT : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
PRESIDED BY : MS. AKRITI MAHENDRU
CS SCJ No. 795/2023
Jyoli Travels Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
M/s Jyoli Travels
Through its Proprietor Sh. Sanjeev Kumar
Address- 1989-G, First Floor, Lampur Road,
Narela, Delhi-110040. .....Plaintiff
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through Its General Manager
Address- Shop No. 215, Rama Market,
Pitampura, Delhi-110034.
Also at- DRO-2, 4E/14, Azad Bhawan
Jhandewalan Extn., Delhi-110055. .....Defendant
JUDGMENT
CNR No. DLNT 030015774/2022
Case No. 795/23
Suit for recovery of Rs. 1,33,414/-
Under Section with pendente lite and future interest @ 18%.
Date of Institution 24.07.2023
Date of Reserving Order 25.03.2026
Date of Final Order 30.03.2026
Final Order Suit Decreed
CS SCJ No. 795/2023 M/s Jyoli Travels Vs. The Oriental Insurance Page 1 of 25
Digitally
signed by
AKRITI
AKRITI MAHENDRU
MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.30
16:39:13
+0530
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall adjudicate the suit instituted by the plaintiff seeking recovery of sum of Rs. 1,33,414/- (rupees one lac thirty three thousand four hundred and fourteen only) along with pendente lite and future interests @ 18% p.a. besides costs and expenses incurred in litigation against the defendant.
2. Succinctly speaking, the grievance ventilated by the plaintiff in the present suit may be encapsulated as follows: plaintiff is the registered owner of the bus, make Tata Motors, bearing registration no. HR-69D-0881 which was insured with the defendant company vide policy/cover note no.271901/31/2023/1541 (Commercial Vehicle Package Policy) for the period from 24.02.2023 until 23.02.2024. The aforesaid bus ("the insured vehicle") met with an accident on 15.03.2023 at about 10.00 A.M. near Budhpur, G.T Karnal Road which resulted in damage to its front, including radiator, front windshield and internal wiring, amongst others, as per surveyor's report. Plaintiff lodged insurance claim with the defendant vide claim No. 270011/31/2023. The insured vehicle was thereafter removed to one Shiva Motors (an Authorised Service Centre of Tata Motors) situated at the main G.T Karnal Road, 20/19, Village Nangli Poona, Delhi where, costs and time of repair were assessed at Rs. 4,71,984/- (rupees four lac seventy one thousand nine hundred and eighty four only) and 15-30 days, respectively. The plaintiff averred that, five days later, when he revisited the Service Station to acquaint himself with the progress of repairs only to discover that it had not even been attended, he took up the matters with the Manager of the defendant CS SCJ No. 795/2023 M/s Jyoli Travels Vs. The Oriental Insurance Page 2 of 25 Digitally signed by AKRITI AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.30 16:39:19 +0530 company and sought his permission to carry out the repairs on his own and further, submit bills issued against repairs for reimbursement. It is pleaded in the plaint that, the Manager agreed to the aforesaid proposal whereupon, the plaintiff removed his vehicle to another service station, got it repaired at his own expense cumulatively amounting to Rs. 1,33,414/- (one lac thirty three thousand four hundred and fourteen only). The gravamen of the plaintiff is that, in spite of submitting all the requisite bills and documents for settlement of his claim to the defendant company at their office, he had received a farthing sum of Rs. 23,800/- (rupees twenty three thousand and eight hundred only) as against his cumulative claim of Rs. 1,33,414/- (one lac thirty three thousand four hundred and fourteen only). Dissatisfied with the resolution of his claim, despite repeated discussions, the plaintiff, on the one hand, refunded the aforesaid amount of Rs. 23,800/- (rupees twenty three thousand and eight hundred only) to the defendant company vide letter dated 01.05.2023, on the other hand, instituted the present suit for recovery of the entire claim amount of Rs. 1,33,414/- (one lac thirty three thousand four hundred and fourteen only) along with pendente lite and future interests @ 18% per annum.
3. The defendant company entered appearance in the present suit on 23.09.2023 pursuant to receipt of summons issued vide order dated 24.07.2023.
4. In its written statement, while denying the averments entailed in CS SCJ No. 795/2023 M/s Jyoli Travels Vs. The Oriental Insurance Page 3 of 25 Digitally signed by AKRITI AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.30 16:39:24 +0530 the plaint, the defendant averred that its Surveyor had assessed the damage to be in the tune of Rs. 23,800/- (rupees twenty three thousand and eight hundred only) and therefore, the demand of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1,33,414/- (one lac thirty three thousand four hundred and fourteen only) is factually untenable as it is premised on false and exaggerated bills.
5. Upon completion of pleadings, vide order dated 13.02.2024, following issues were framed in the present suit , namely - 5.1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of ₹1,33,414/ -, as prayed for? OPP 5.2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till payment of the claimed amount, as prayed for? OPP 5.3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for costs of the suit? OPP. 5.4. Whether the plaintiff had not made available the vehicle for inspection by the surveyor after its repair? OPP. 5.5. Relief.
6. To prove its case, plaintiff examined five (05) witnesses on its behalf, namely - PW1/Proprietor of the plaintiff firm; PW2/Sh. Arun Kumar Todi, Manager of M/s Eastern Auto & Bearing House;
PW3/Sh. Balak Ram, Proprietor of Friends Bus Body Builders; PW4/Sh. Parush Kumar Allabadi, Son of the Proprietor of N.S. Glass House; and PW5/Sh. Mukesh, Proprietor of Jai Auto Workshop.
CS SCJ No. 795/2023 M/s Jyoli Travels Vs. The Oriental Insurance Page 4 of 25Digitally signed by AKRITI AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.30 16:39:28 +0530
7. PW1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) wherein, he reiterated the contents of his plaint and relied upon the following documents, namely -
SL. No. DOCUMENTS EXHIBIT
1 Copy of Registration Certificate of Bus PW1/1
bearing registration No. HR69B-0881
2 Insurance of the Bus PW1/2
3 Letter of refund of amount PW1/3
4 Copy of Aadhar Card of plaintiff PW1/4
5 Copies of two bills for the repair of the Mark A
work
6. Copies for the two bills for change of Mark B
spare parts
7. Photographs of the repaired insured Mark C
vehicle.
7.1. In his cross-examination, PW1, inter alia, deposed that the defendant company was informed regarding the accident on the date of the incident. The witness conceded that after, Shiv Motors had estimated damage in the tune of Rs. 4,71,984/-, the Surveyor of the defendant company had given approval subject to final settlement of the claim while denying that the damage of Rs. 4,71,984/- was not estimated by the official Surveyor of the defendant company. The CS SCJ No. 795/2023 M/s Jyoli Travels Vs. The Oriental Insurance Page 5 of 25 Digitally signed by AKRITI MAHENDRU AKRITI Date: MAHENDRU 2026.03.30 16:39:33 +0530 witness, however, denied the suggestions, namely - that no approval prior to getting the insured vehicle repaired from another service station was received from the defendant company; that the Radiator and the Inter Cooler Assay were manipulated by him; that he was aware that the official Surveyor had approved the claim of Rs. 23,800/-; that the liability of the defendant company is limited to Rs. 23,800/-; that he is not entitled to the amount claimed herein; that the allegations levelled in paragraphs no.9 and 12 of Ex. PW1/A were false and frivolous; and that he was deposing falsely.
8. Thereafter, the plaintiff examined Sh. Arun Kumar, Manager of M/s Eastern Auto @ Bearing House, as PW2. He tendered the summoned record pertaining to sale of a new radiator vide attested copy of invoice no.2022-23/01649 dated 21.03.2023 as Ex. PW2/1 and an attested copy of GST return pertaining to the aforesaid sale transaction as Ex. PW2/2.
8.1. In his cross-examination, PW2 deposed that he had received the bill amount of Rs. 45,294/- in cash from the plaintiff while denying the suggestion that amount entailed in Ex. PW2/1 was exaggerated.
9. The plaintiff examined Sh. Balak Ram, Proprietor of Friends Bus Body Builders, Janta Bus Body Market, as PW3 who deposed that he had repaired the insured vehicle on 22.03.2023 which entailed front bus show, headlight, indicator and fitted two frontside windshield glass besides repairing the bumper, panel and engine covering dashboard. The witness further testified that he had charged CS SCJ No. 795/2023 M/s Jyoli Travels Vs. The Oriental Insurance Page 6 of 25 Digitally signed by AKRITI AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.30 16:39:37 +0530 an amount of Rs. 75,620/- for the aforesaid (repair) work, inclusive of parts and labor. Copy of the bill was already marked as Mark A, on page no.2 of the list of documents which the witness identified as the one raised by him and signed by his employee, Sh. Vijay Kumar. 9.1. In his cross-examination, PW3 testified that he had received the bill amount of Rs. 75,620/- in cash from the plaintiff while denying the suggestion that amount entailed in Mark A was exaggerated.
10. Sh. Parush Kumar Allabadi, son of the Proprietor of N.S. Glass House was examined as PW4 on behalf of the plaintiff who tendered an attested copy of invoice no.625 dated 20.03.2023 generated toward sale of the front windshield/glass of the bus as Ex. PW4/1 and an attested copy of GST return pertaining to the aforesaid sale as Ex. PW4/2.
10.1. In his cross-examination, PW2 testified that he had received the bill amount of Rs. 10,620/- in cash from the plaintiff while denying the suggestion that amount entailed in Ex. PW4/1 was exaggerated.
11. Lastly, the plaintiff examined Sh. Mukesh, Proprietor of Auto Workshop as PW5 who tendered bill book containing carbon copy of bill No.063 dated 22.03.2023 issued to the plaintiff toward repair of radiator and engine wiring in the insured vehicle amounting to Rs. 12,500/-, already marked as Mark A. 11.1. In his cross-examination, PW5 testified that he had received the bill amount of Rs.12,500/- in cash from the plaintiff while denying the suggestion that amount entailed in Mark A was exaggerated. The CS SCJ No. 795/2023 M/s Jyoli Travels Vs. The Oriental Insurance Page 7 of 25 Digitally signed by AKRITI AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.30 16:39:42 +0530 witness while denying the suggestion that there was no need to replace the radiator, categorically deposed that the old radiator was totally damaged.
12. No other witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiff in the present case and vide statement dated 29.03.2025, the plaintiff closed evidence on its behalf.
13. Thereafter, in order to prove its case, the defendant company examined Sh. Vinod Kumar Indoria, Surveyor & Loss, Assessor as DW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. DW1/A and relied upon Motor Final Survey Report as Ex. DW1/1. In his affidavit, the witness deposed qua an authorised Surveyor having membership no.F/N7183 valid through 23.12.2025, he was deputed by the defendant company to assess the damage caused to the insured vehicle. The witness further deposed that, in furtherance of the assessment carried out, he filed the report dated 23.03.2023 (Ex.
DW1/1) as per which, the insured (namely, the plaintiff) had manipulated the radiator and intercooler assey. And since, this opinion is consistent with the opinion expressed by the Spot Surveyor, the claims against the aforesaid items were disallowed. 13.1. In his cross-examination, DW1, inter alia, testified that he is not an employee of the defendant company, though did not produce a copy of his license. The witness further deposed that he was deputed to conduct survey on 16.03.2023 and the accident had occurred on 15.03.2023. He further testified that he reached the workshop (Friends CS SCJ No. 795/2023 M/s Jyoli Travels Vs. The Oriental Insurance Page 8 of 25 Digitally signed by AKRITI AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.30 16:39:47 +0530 Bus Body Builders) however, did not conduct any spot survey of the insured vehicle. The defendant company had supplied him with the copies of the insurance policy, RC, DL and an estimate of repair. The witness identified Ex. PW1/2 as the insurance policy whereas, Ex. PW1/1 as the RC. The witness deposed that the terms and conditions borne in the pamphlet filed along with the written statement (exhibited as Ex. DX/1) are consistent with the terms and conditions entailed in the insurance policy (Ex. PW1/2). DW1 conceded that the insurance policy is subject to IMT endorsements, namely - IMT-40, IMT-36, IMT-22, IMT-23, IMT-44 and IMT-6 whereas, the pamphlet is restricted to IMT-6 and IMT-23 only. In spite of this, the witness denied the suggestions - that the terms and conditions placed on record are not in anyway related or concerned with the insured vehicle; and that the defendant had concealed the actual terms and conditions deliberately and intentionally. The witness deposed that the expression 'manipulated parts' means that the part was wrongly installed in the vehicle before its survey with a dishonest intention of taking undue advantage in the claim and clarified that when he reached the workshop in connection with survey, he technically observed that, in its front portion, an intercooler was fitted which was did not belong to the insured vehicle as the cooling system was unaffected. And upon completion of the repair works, DW1 testified that he revisited the workshop for re-inspection of the insured vehicle on 22.03.2024, whereon, it was once again pointed out to the workshop as well as to the representative of the owner of the insured vehicle that intercooler and fan, etc. have not been replaced, although CS SCJ No. 795/2023 M/s Jyoli Travels Vs. The Oriental Insurance Page 9 of 25 Digitally signed by AKRITI MAHENDRU AKRITI MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.30 16:39:52 +0530 did not supply a copy of his survey report either to the insured or his representative. Likewise, the witness conceded that he did not provide any written intimation either to the insured or his representative (son of the insured) that the parts of the insured vehicle are manipulated or not replaced. The witness deposed that the radiator was not damaged whereas, the intercooler was planted, however, he did not conduct any investigation in this regard on behalf of the defendant company, despite claiming that he was deputed to conduct the survey of the insured vehicle as well as investigate into the claim. Although, DW1 failed to produce any correspondence regarding his deputation for conducting investigation into the claim made against the insured vehicle, however, testified that preliminary investigation is integral to survey. Be that as it may, the witness categorically denied ever being asked, in writing, by the defendant company to find out if any parts were manipulated by the insured (namely, the plaintiff). DW1 further conceded that the insured vehicle was repaired at the very workshop which had issued the work estimate, though denied the suggestion that he had received the estimated from Shiva Motors only whereas, the insured vehicle was repaired at Friends Bus Body Builders. The witness, after looking at his report, admitted that the total estimates from both the workshops are mentioned therein, not to mention that he had approved the claim for the front left hand side glass only in the tune of Rs. 3500/- on the basis of its market rate. DW1 conceded that he had received all the bills in respect of repair of the insured vehicle while denying the suggestion that the market value of the glass as per the bill (Ex. PW4/1) was Rs. 10,620/- including GST by dubbing it as CS SCJ No. 795/2023 M/s Jyoli Travels Vs. The Oriental Insurance Page 10 of 25 Digitally signed by AKRITI AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.30 16:39:56 +0530 manipulated. DW1 further conceded that his report nowhere mentions the bills, provided by the insured for the parts which got repaired, as manipulated and denied the suggestion that he had deposed about the manipulated intercooler, radiator and fan parts, etc. only on the basis of the spot survey report by asserting that he had discovered these defects at the Friends Bus Body Builders on 16.03.2024. The witness denied the following suggestions, namely - that the claim of the insured was declined because the insured vehicle was not repaired at the authorised service station; that the defendant company did not receive any commission from the authorised service station because the insured got the insured vehicle repaired from the workshop of his own choice (i.e. Friends Bus Body Builders); that his report is baseless and concocted; that he prepared a concocted report and declined the claim because neither he nor the Spot Surveyor nor the Manager of the defendant company received any commission from the insured; and that he had deposed falsely at the instance of the defendant company. The witness confirmed that the photographs Mark C (total 11 photographs) tendered by PW1 were that of the insured vehicle taken after the accident. He stated that he was not the employee of defendant company.
14. No other witness was examined on behalf of the defendant company in the present case. And vide statement dated 19.07.2025, evidence on behalf of the defendant company was closed.CS SCJ No. 795/2023 M/s Jyoli Travels Vs. The Oriental Insurance Page 11 of 25
Digitally signed by AKRITI AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.30 16:40:01 +0530
15. Arguments were addressed with equal vehemence on behalf of both the parties, for, on the one hand, it has been contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the invoices forming part of the claim have been duly proven on record inasmuch as the plea of exaggeration raised by the defendant company has not found favour from any of the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff thereby, paving the way for grant of the prayers made in the present suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant company. Whereas, on the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the defendant company that the claim raised by the plaintiff is patently exaggerated and manipulated as also discernible from the testimony of DW1, an independent and impartial Surveyor, not acting under employment of the defendant company, so much so has deposed not only that the intercooler fitted in the front of the insured vehicle did not belong to it but also that the intercooler, fan, etc. were not even replaced therein, not to mention that the market value of the windshield glass purchased vide invoice Ex. PW4/1 was inflated and thereby, prayed for dismissal of the present suit with costs.
16. In this backdrop, this Court shall now proceed to deal with the issues (supra paragraph no.5) framed in the present suit.
17. Insofar as issue no.5.1. (supra paragraph no.5) as regards entitlement of the plaintiff to decretal amount of Rs.1,33,414/- (rupees one lac thirty three thousand four hundred and fourteen only) is concerned, the onus to prove it is cast upon him by dint of conjoint CS SCJ No. 795/2023 M/s Jyoli Travels Vs. The Oriental Insurance Page 12 of 25 Digitally signed by AKRITI MAHENDRU AKRITI Date: MAHENDRU 2026.03.30 16:40:06 +0530 reading of sections 1011 and 1022 entailed in Part III - Production And Effect Of Evidence, Chapter VII. - Of The Burden Of Proof of the Indian Evidence Act, 1882.
17.1. To discharge his onus on the scales of balance of probabilities, the plaintiff has relied upon, inter alia, the following documents, namely - (a) Invoice dated 21.03.2023 qua purchase of spare parts from Eastern Auto & Bearing House for an amount of Rs. 45,293/-
(Mark B); and (b) Invoices for repairs carried out by Jai Auto Workshop and Friends Bus Body Builders, both dated 22.03.2023, for an amount of Rs. 12,500/- and Rs. 75620/-, respectively, though collectively marked as Mark A. And since, photocopies of these invoice are filed on record, the plaintiff examined the concerned persons from the respective entities to prove the aforesaid invoices, namely - PW2 was examined to prove the invoice dated 21.03.2023 who tendered Mark B as Ex. PW2/1 whereas, PW5 and PW3 were examined to prove the invoices 22.03.2023 (Mark A). Furthermore, plaintiff also examined PW4 (Prop. of N.S. Glass House) to prove the purchase of the front windshield for the insured vehicle who tendered invoice dated 20.03.2023 for an amount of ₹10,620/- as Ex. PW4/1 (Colly.) corroborated by the GST Return as Ex. PW4/2 (Colly.). 17.2. It is noteworthy that all these aforesaid plaintiff witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of the defendant company only on the 1
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.
2102. On whom burden of proof lies - The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.
CS SCJ No. 795/2023 M/s Jyoli Travels Vs. The Oriental Insurance Page 13 of 25Digitally signed by AKRITI AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.30 16:40:13 +0530 limited point of ascertaining if these invoices are inflated or not to which they all have likewise denied. This line of cross-examination on behalf of the defendant company is, a tad, coherent with its written statement filed in the present suit inasmuch as the kernel of objection raised therein is that the claim amount is premised on false- exaggerated invoices and that, as per the Surveyor's Report, the only parts replaced in the insured vehicle were the front glass, the head light and the right indicator whereas, rest of the parts against which claim has been preferred by dubbing them as new parts had only been repaired. Ironically, none of the latter part of suggestions was put either to PW3 or to PW5 since they were the ones that claimed to have carried out the repairs. And for the reasons best within the realm of the defendant company, these aforesaid witnesses were not even confronted with the Surveyor's Report dated 23.03.2023 filed along with the written statement, albeit later exhibited as Ex. DW1/1, or with the portions thereof, either to elicit their response or to ascertain the veracity of defence raised by it. The mere fact that a passing suggestion was given to the plaintiff (PW1), in his cross-examination, regarding the Radiator and the Inter-cooler Assey being manipulated would not fit the legal touchstone of proving a fact-in-issue (to wit - whether the claim of the plaintiff is bona fide or exaggerated or manipulated). At this stage, a timeless rule springs to mind, that, should one dispute the correctness of a statement of a witness, one must not do so sans giving him an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to the part of it which is objected to as untrue CS SCJ No. 795/2023 M/s Jyoli Travels Vs. The Oriental Insurance Page 14 of 25 Digitally signed by AKRITI AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.30 16:40:18 +0530 failing which, one is precluded from impeaching his credit. In the matter of 'State of U.P. v. Nahar Sing (Dead) & Ors.'3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while enunciating the principle that section 1384 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 confers a valuable right to cross-examine a witness tendered in evidence by opposite party and that the scope of that provision is rather enlarged by section 1465 thereof by permitting a witness to be questioned, inter alia, to test his veracity, it was observed that:
"The oft-quoted observation of Lord Herschell, L.C. in Browne v. Dunn clearly elucidates the principle underlying those provisions. It reads thus:
"I cannot help saying, that it seems to me to be absolutely essential to the proper conduct of a cause, where it is intended to suggest that a witness is not speaking the truth on a particular point, to direct his attention to the fact by some questions put in cross- examination showing that that imputation is intended to be made and not to take his evidence and pass it by as a matter altogether unchallenged, and then, when it is impossible for him to explain, as perhaps he might have been able to do if such questions had been put 3 [1998] 3 SCC 561 4
138. Order of examinations. - Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief.5
146. Questions lawful in cross-examination. - When a witness is cross-examined, he may, in addition to the questions hereinbefore referred to, be asked any questions which tend-
(1) to test his veracity, (2) to discover who he is and what is his position in life, or (3) to shake his credit, by injuring his character, although the answer to such questions might tend directly or indirectly to criminate him, or might expose or tend directly or indirectly to expose him to a penalty or forfeiture:
Provided that in a prosecution for an offence under section 376, 3 [section 376A, section 376AB section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB] or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or for attempt to commit any such offence, where the question of consent is an issue, it shall not be permissible to adduce evidence or to put questions in the cross- examination of the victim as to the general immoral character, or previous sexual experience, of such victim with any person for proving such consent or the quality of consent.
CS SCJ No. 795/2023 M/s Jyoli Travels Vs. The Oriental Insurance Page 15 of 25
Digitally
signed by
AKRITI
AKRITI MAHENDRU
MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.30
16:40:22
+0530
to him, the circumstances which, it is suggested, indicate that the story he tells ought not to be believed, to argue that he is a witness unworthy of credit. My Lords, I have always understood that if you intend to impeach a witness, you are bound, whilst he is in the box, to give an opportunity of making any explanation which is open to him; and, as it seems to me, that is not only a rule of professional practice in the conduct of a case, but it is essential to fair play and fair dealing with witnesses."
17.3. The principles quote above are time-tested inasmuch as have been reiterated by the august Courts of this country in myriad judgments, for they are inherent in ensuring fair play and fairness while dealing with a witness. That said, the credit, neither of these witnesses nor of the documents tendered by them, could be impeached for the reasons aforesaid, much less in the absence of any cogent material brought on record on behalf of the defendant company either impugning the veracity of their testimony or shaking their impartiality, and for that very reason, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has to be able to discharge the onus of proving that legitimate expenses were incurred in the repairs of the insured vehicle upon its accident on the touchstone of balance of probabilities. 17.4. Be that as it may, the onus of proving that the claim of the plaintiff is manipulated or exaggerated, or the expenses claimed by him are illegitimate, thence shifts upon the defendant company. And to discharge that, the defendant company examined DW1/Surveyor of the insured vehicle as the lone witness. The salient characteristics emanating from his testimony are - (a) conjoint reading section 64UM CS SCJ No. 795/2023 M/s Jyoli Travels Vs. The Oriental Insurance Page 16 of 25 Digitally signed by AKRITI AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.30 16:40:27 +0530 sub-sections (1), (2) and (3)6 of the Insurance Act, 1938 precludes any person from acting as a surveyor or loss assessor in respect of general insurance business after the expiry of a period of one year from the commencement of the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 (5 of 2015), unless he satisfies the conditions lucidly spelt out therein. In the present case, DW1 did not place his license to act either as a surveyor or as a loss assessor on record. Therefore, in the absence of his license, Survey Report dated 23.03.2023 (Ex. DW1/1) prepared by him is per se inadmissible in law, not to mention that his testimony cannot be adverted to for any purpose whatsoever; (b) be that as it may, for the sake of future discussion, this Court shall hypothesise that his license is valid and enforceable which would render his report admissible in law, it is germane to note that, in his cross-examination, while conceding that he had never inspected the insured vehicle at time time before it met with an accident, DW1 deposed that he had technically observed that the intercooler fitted in the insured vehicle 6 64UM. Surveyors or loss assessors. -(1) Save as otherwise provided in this section, no person shall act as a surveyor or loss assessor in respect of general insurance business after the expiry of a period of one year from the commencement of the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 (5 of 2015), unless he - (a) possesses such academic qualifications as may be specified by the regulations made under this Act; and (b) is a member of a professional body of surveyors and loss assessors, namely, the Indian Institute of Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors: Provided that in the case of a firm or company, all the partners or directors or other persons, who may be called upon to make a survey or assess a loss reported, as the case may be, shall fulfill the requirements of clauses (a) and (b).
(2) Every surveyor and loss assessor shall comply with the code of conduct in respect of his duties, responsibilities and other professional requirements, as may be specified by the regulations made under the Act.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions, a class or class of persons acting as a licensed surveyor or loss assessor prior to the commencement of the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 (5 of 2015) shall continue to act as such for such period as may be specified by the regulations made under this Act: Provided that the surveyor or loss assessor shall, within the period as may be notified by the Authority, satisfy the requirements of clause (a) and clause (b) of sub-section (1), failing which, the surveyor or loss assessor shall be automatically disqualified to act as a surveyor or loss assessor.CS SCJ No. 795/2023 M/s Jyoli Travels Vs. The Oriental Insurance Page 17 of 25
Digitally signed by AKRITI AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.30 16:40:31 +0530 did not belong there but at the time of its re-inspection, discovered that the intercooler, fan, etc. were not replaced in the insured vehicle. Not only no such averments are made in the written statement, the testimony of DW1 is contradictory, all the same, for it is anybody's guess as to what he might have technically observed or physically inspected inasmuch as the witness is deposing that the intercooler did not belong there and that, inter alia, intercooler had not been replaced in the same breath without any further elucidation on the matter, much less de hors any photographs supporting his claim, let alone any literature on the design and architecture of vehicles in the likes of the insured vehicle. Oddly, DW1 testified that he had orally communicated these misrepresentations to the owner of the workshop and the representative of the plaintiff, however, no such suggestion was given either to the plaintiff or any of the witnesses examined by him in the cross-examination which goes to debunk the frivolity of defence raised by the defendant company without any cogent material to corroborate it; (c) DW1, in his cross-examination, testified that he had assessed the windshield glass at Rs 3500/- while imputing that the claim of ₹10,620/- raised by the plaintiff vide Ex. PW4/1 (Colly.) is exaggerated. The ipse dixit testimony of DW1 regarding the market rate of a commodity/item does not inspire confidence in this Court inasmuch as, on the one hand, the plaintiff has examined PW4 who not only to proved that he sold the windshield glass vide invoice Ex. PW4/1 (Colly.) by corroborating it with the GST Return (Ex. PW4/2 (Colly.)) whereas, on the other hand, the defendant company led no independent evidence to contest the market value thereof by CS SCJ No. 795/2023 M/s Jyoli Travels Vs. The Oriental Insurance Page 18 of 25 Digitally signed by AKRITI MAHENDRU AKRITI MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.30 16:40:35 +0530 examining another vendor from the open market. 17.5. In conspectus of foregoing appreciation of material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that while, on the one hand, the defendant company has failed to prove either manipulation or exaggeration, as imputed, which would render the claim of the plaintiff illegitimate, the latter, on the other hand, has been able to prove his case as well as the claim of Rs. 1,33,414/- (rupees one lac thirty three thousand four hundred and fourteen only) as borne out from cumulative sum of the invoices Mark A, Ex. PW2/1 and Ex.
PW4/1 (Colly.). The issue no.5.1. (supra paragraph no.5) as regards entitlement of the plaintiff to decretal amount of Rs. 1,33,414/- (rupees one lac thirty three thousand four hundred and fourteen only) is allowed in his favour and against the defendant company to the extent of Rs. 1,33,414/- (rupees one lac thirty three thousand four hundred and fourteen only).
18. Insofar as issue no.5.2. (supra paragraph no.5) as regards entitlement of the plaintiff to interests @ 18% p.a. on the decreed amount of Rs. 1,33,414/- (rupees one lac thirty three thousand and four hundred and fourteen only) is concerned, it is noteworthy that there is a consensus of opinion amongst the Courts across the country that higher rates of interest are against the public policy of India. In its judgment dated 13.02.2025 rendered in the matter of 'M/S. Tommorrowland Limited v. Housing And Urban CS SCJ No. 795/2023 M/s Jyoli Travels Vs. The Oriental Insurance Page 19 of 25 Digitally signed by AKRITI AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.30 16:40:39 +0530 Development'7, the Hon'ble Supreme of India held that:
"9. It is trite law that under Section 34 of the CPC, the award of interest is a discretionary exercise steeped in equitable considerations. The law in this regard has been succinctly discussed in the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra & Ors.; (2002) 1 SCC 367, which states:
"Award of interest pendente lite or post-decree is discretionary with the Court as it is essentially governed by Section 34 of the CPC de hors the contract between the parties. In a given case if the Court finds that in the principal sum adjudged on the date of the suit, the component of interest is disproportionate with the component of the principal sum actually advanced, the Court may exercise its discretion in awarding interest pendente lite and post- decree interest at a lower rate or may even decline to award such interest. The discretion shall be exercised fairly, judiciously, and for not arbitrary or fanciful reasons."
50. There is no gainsaying that the power to award interest ought to be exercised judiciously, aligning with equitable considerations and also ensuring neither undue enrichment nor unfair deprivation. Courts are duty-bound to assess the facts and circumstances of each case, applying the principles of fairness and justice. This discretion must reflect a balanced approach, grounded in reason, and guided by the overarching objective of equity."
7[ 2025 INSC 207] CS SCJ No. 795/2023 M/s Jyoli Travels Vs. The Oriental Insurance Page 20 of 25 Digitally signed by AKRITI AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.30 16:40:44 +0530 18.1. The powers of this Court insofar as the interest component is concerned are circumscribed by the provisions of section 348 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the adumbral of foregoing legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the defendant company had already disbursed a sum of Rs. 23,800/-
(rupees twenty three thousand and eight hundred only) in favour of the plaintiff against his original claim of Rs. 1,33,414/-, a transaction albeit reversed by the latter out of protest against the former, and the ends of justice would be served with the plaintiff granted interests only on the balance amount of Rs. 1,09,614/- (rupees one lac nine thousand six hundred and fourteen only) to be computed at the rate of 9% p.a. since the date on which the defendant company disbursed the partial claim amount of Rs. 23,800/- (rupees twenty three thousand and eight hundred only) till the date of actual payment. The issue stands answered accordingly.
19. Insofar as issue no.5.3. (supra paragraph no.5) as regards 8
34. Interest.-
(1) 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 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 six per cent. 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:
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 six per cent. per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions. Explanation I.- In this sub-section, "nationalised bank" means a corresponding new bank as defined in the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 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 incurring the liability. (2) 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 payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit therefor shall not lie.
CS SCJ No. 795/2023 M/s Jyoli Travels Vs. The Oriental Insurance Page 21 of 25 Digitally signed by AKRITIAKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.30 16:40:48 +0530 entitlement of the plaintiff to costs of litigation is concerned, powers of this Court in that context are both guided as well as circumscribed by the provisions of section 359 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no gainsaying that the defendant company has abused its inequitable bargaining capacity vis-á-vis insured (i.e. plaintiff) in shortchanging him while settlement of his insurance claim by putting established precepts aimed at protection of interests of policy-holders (within the meaning of Insurance Act, 1938) on the sacrificial altar and for that very reason, is amenable to compensate the plaintiff for costs incurred in pursing the present litigation for recovering his dues which could have been obviated only if the former had not stonewalled latter's claim on plumb frivolous, tenuous and above all, vexatious grounds. However, since the plaintiff has not led any evidence on the aspect of quantum of expenses, namely - lawyer's fees, diet money paid to the witnesses, and any other miscellaneous and incidental expenses, incurred by him in pursuing the present suit, this Court is encumbered to compensate him for the aforesaid expenses. Nonetheless, this Court has taken judicial notice of the valuation of the plaint and the amount of court-fees paid in furtherance thereof by the plaintiff. Accordingly, 9
35. Costs. - (1) In relation to any commercial dispute, the Court, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or Rule, has the discretion to determine: (a) whether costs are payable by one party to another; (b) the quantum of those costs; and (c) when they are to be paid. Explanation.-For the purpose of clause (a), the expression "costs" shall mean reasonable costs relating to - (i) the fees and expenses of the witnesses incurred; (ii) legal fees and expenses incurred; (iii) any other expenses incurred in connection with the proceedings. (2) If the Court decides to make an order for payment of costs, the general rule is that the unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party:
Provided that the Court may make an order deviating from the general rule for reasons to be recorded in writing.CS SCJ No. 795/2023 M/s Jyoli Travels Vs. The Oriental Insurance Page 22 of 25
Digitally signed by AKRITI AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.30 16:40:53 +0530 the defendant company is hereby, ordered to compensate the plaintiff in the tune of Rs. 4000/- (rupees four thousand only) toward costs of litigation. The issue stands decided, accordingly.
20. Before parting, this Court is unable to turn a Nelson's eye to the vexatious growing tendency amongst the insurance companies (defined under the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938) in, more often than not, rejecting or mitigating the claims of the insured, notwithstanding however bona fide, for reasons which can at best be described convoluted, flimsy or technical grounds, as also in the present suit of the plaintiff which is a textbook case for such an instance. Courts, including the highest Court of the land, have time-and-again sensitised insurers (or insurance companies) by reminding them to be mindful of their responsibility in discharge of their solemn statutory obligations toward the common man of this country. The legislature, in its wisdom as much as to further its intent to "protect the interests of holders of insurance policies, to regulate, promote and ensure orderly growth of the insurance industry and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto and further to amend the Insurance Act, 1938, the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 and the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972"10 has enacted the Insurance Regulatory And Development Authority Act, 1999 to further constitute an Authority called as the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India. The Authority constituted thereunder is repository of duties, powers and functions, all aimed at protection of the interests of the policy-holders in 10 Preamble to the Insurance Regulatory And Development Authority Act, 1999.CS SCJ No. 795/2023 M/s Jyoli Travels Vs. The Oriental Insurance Page 23 of 25 Digitally signed by AKRITI MAHENDRU
AKRITI MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.30 16:40:57 +0530 matters concerning, inter alia, settlement of insurance claims. Regrettably, the insured, despite making timely payment of premiums, is made to run from pillar to post, in exasperation, for settlement of his claims which insurance companies deny with not just arbitrariness and utmost callousness but with impunity. More than two decades have passed since the promulgation of the Insurance Regulatory And Development Authority Act, 1999 and in spite of that, there is a deluge of cases overwhelming the Courts with insurance settlement claims either because of lack of enforcement of stern action against errant insurance companies and its emissaries for inadequacy of training of its personnel or devil-may-care attitude of its surveyors or loss assessors in observing the code of conduct or for other extraneous considerations. 20.1. That said, taking stock of the flimsy, incredulous and vexatiously uncorroborated defence marshalled by the defendant company to deny the rightful claim of the plaintiff in the present suit, this Court, circumscribed by the provisions of section 35A 11 of the Code of Civil 11 35A. Compensatory costs in respect of false or vexatious claims or defences.-(1) If in any suit or other proceedings including an execution proceeding but excluding an appeal or a revision any party objects to the claim or defence on the ground that the claim or defence or any part of it is, as against the objector, false or vexatious to the knowledge of the party by whom it has been put forward, and if thereafter, as against the objector, such claim or defence is disallowed, abandoned or withdrawn in whole or in part, the Court, if it so thinks fit, may, after recording its reasons for holding such claim or defence to be false or vexatious, make an order for the payment to the object or by the party by whom such claim or defence has been put forward, of cost by way of compensation.
(2) No Court shall make any such order for the payment of an amount exceeding three thousand rupees or exceeding the limits of its pecuniary jurisdiction, whichever amount is less: Provided that where the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of any Court exercising the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (9 of 1887), or under a corresponding law in force in any part of India to which the said Act does not extend and not being a Court constituted under such Act or law, are less than two hundred and fifty rupees, the High Court may empower such Court to award as costs under this section any amount not exceeding two hundred and fifty rupees and not exceeding those limits by more than one hundred rupees :
Provided, further, that the High Court may limit the amount which any Court or class of Courts is empowered to award as costs under this section.CS SCJ No. 795/2023 M/s Jyoli Travels Vs. The Oriental Insurance Page 24 of 25 Digitally signed by AKRITI
AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.30 16:41:02 +0530 Procedure, 1908, hereby, orders the defendant company to pay an additional amount of Rs. 3,000/- (rupees three thousand only) to the plaintiff toward compensatory costs within one week from the date of expiry of period prescribed for appeal against this judgment.
21. All in all, for reasons assgined hereto for, plaintiff has been able to successfully prove his case by leading cogent evidence. The suit is hereby ordered to be decreed so much so that the plaintiff is held entitled to a money decree against the defendant in the amount of Rs.
1,33,414/- (rupees one lac thirty three thousand four hundred and fourteen only) along with interest on the amount of Rs. 1,09,614/- (rupees one lac nine thousand six hundred and fourteen only) @ 9% per annum to be computed from the date on which the defendant company disbursed partial claim amount (of Rs. 23,800/-) to the plaintiff till the date of actual realization.
Costs of litigation as much as compensatory costs are also awarded in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant company.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by AKRITI AKRITI MAHENDRU MAHENDRU Date:
2026.03.30 (Announced in the open Court 16:41:08 +0530 on 30.03.2026) (Akriti Mahendru) SCJ / RC / North Rohini Court / Delhi 30.03.2026 CS SCJ No. 795/2023 M/s Jyoli Travels Vs. The Oriental Insurance Page 25 of 25