Delhi District Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Yadav Transporter on 7 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEVENDER KUMAR, DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT-01), EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
CS (Comm.) No. 37/2024
The New India Assurance Company Limited
10th Floor, Core-I, Scope Minar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi
Through its Manager ...... Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Yadav Transporter
Through its Proprietor / Manager
Nirbhay Yadav
Near Markand Bridge, Shivalik Colony,
Kala-Amb, Tehsil Naraingarh
Distt. Ambala, Haryana
2. M/s Aggarwal Glass Works
12 B, Industrial Area, Trilokpur Road,
Kala-Amb, Tehsil- Nahan,
District Sirmour, (H.P) ...... Defendants
Date of Institution : 01.02.2024
Date of Arguments: 28.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 07.02.2026
JUDGMENT:
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose of this suit for recovery of Rs. 17,52,637/- along with interest @ 18% per annum filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. Brief facts of the case are as under:
Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 DEVENDRA The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. DEVENDRA KUMAR 1/29 KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 16:19:58 +0530
2. Plaintiff is an insurance company incorporated under Companies Act and is being represented through its Manager, Ms. Prabha Malhotra, who is authorized through Power of Attorney to institute this suit. It is further alleged that the defendant No. 1 is a common carrier of goods and transports goods by road throughout India for hire and reward and is covered under The Carriage by Road Act for transportation of goods. Defendant no. 2 was insured and proforma defendant subscribed Marine Cargo Open Policy from the plaintiff to insure consignment vide Policy No. 32010021210200000011 for the period w.e.f. 15.01.2022 to 14.01.2023. It is further alleged that the defendant no. 2 booked a consignment of 1663 pieces of toughed glasses with the defendant no.1, having value of Rs. 20,84,987/- including GST, vide Invoice No. AGW-2021/22-401 dated 14.02.2022 and GR No. 5001 dated 14.02.2022, to transport from Kala Amb Industrial Area to Banaras (Varanasi).
2.1. Plaintiff has further alleged that the consignment was booked but did not reach to its destination at Varanasi, as truck owned by the defendant no. 1 met with an accident and the consignment got damaged. It is further alleged that on getting information, the defendant no. 2 immediately registered his claim with the plaintiff and the plaintiff appointed surveyor Pankaj Goel, who prepared report and assessed loss of Rs. 17,52,637/- and the defendant no.1 issued damage certificate dated 07.03.2022 wherein the defendant admitted that the defendant no.2 booked a consignment of Automotive toughed glasses and the consignment got damaged on the way to Varanasi. It is further alleged that the defendant no. 2 also intimated to the defendant no. 1 vide letter dated 26.02.2022 that it had suffered losses Digitally signed by DEVENDRA CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. DEVENDRA KUMAR 2/29 KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 16:20:06 +0530 of Rs. 20,84,987/- and requested to compensate for damages. However, the plaintiff paid claim amount of Rs. 17,52,637/- as per survey report to the defendant no.2.
2.3. Plaintiff has further alleged that the defendant no. 2 served a notice dated 26.02.2022 upon the defendant no. 1 under Section 10 of Carriage Act but the defendant no. 1 failed to settle claim and the plaintiff also served a similar notice before disbursement of the claim but legal notices were neither replied nor complied with. It is further alleged that the defendant no. 1 being common carrier was negligent and caused damage to the consignment and failed to exercise due diligence and care in transportation of the consignment and is liable to pay suit amount. Plaintiff has further alleged that the defendant no. 2 has subrogated its rights regarding claim in favor of the plaintiff through letter of Subrogation & Special Power of Attorney dated 11.10.2022 and the plaintiff has filed suit to recover claim amount paid to the defendant no.2, hence present suit for recovery of Rs. 17,52,637/- along with interest @ 18% per annum.
3. Defendant No. 1 has filed WS thereby denying is liability to pay this amount, as the defendant no. 1 is not a common carrier and also not insurer to fasten liability of damage. It is further alleged that even this plaint is not signed on each and every page and authority of AR is also not on record, due to this suit is not maintainable. Defendant has denied its liability thereby alleging that the defendant no. 2 booked a consignment of delivery of toughed glasses and material was loaded on truck bearing no. HR-63B-6050 on 14.02.2022 to transport from Kala Amb Industrial Area to Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 DEVENDRA The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. DEVENDRA KUMAR 3/29 KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 16:20:13 +0530 Banaras (Varanasi) and Prem Singh was driver of vehicle, but on 15.02.2022 at about 12.33 AM, driver was driving vehicle consciously and reached near forest area of Naraingarh when suddenly a Nilgai came in front of truck and collided and cause accident. It is further alleged that driver tried to stop truck to save collision but lost balance and overturned, due to glass consignment got damaged.
3.1. Defendant has further alleged that truck driver immediately lodged Diary Entry No. 8 dated 15.02.2022 with Kala Amb Police Station and matter was investigated by HC Parveen Kumar, who closed investigation by concluding similarly. It is further alleged that surveyor of the plaintiff also conducted survey and recorded statement of truck driver and found no negligence on the part of truck driver and such accident was Act of God, or reason beyond human control, due to this suit is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that survey report prepared by Pankaj Goel was biased and prepared at the instance of the plaintiff and the defendant is not liable to pay any damage. Defendant has further alleged that the plaintiff has failed to serve any mandatory notice under Section 16 of Carriage of Road Act, 2007 within limitation, due to this suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
3.2. Defendant no. 2 has also filed WS thereby denying locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit and has alleged that the defendant no. 2 is neither transporter nor insurance company, due to the defendant no. 2 is not liable to pay any damage. However, it is not denied that the defendant no.2 booked a consignment with the defendant no. 1 to transport toughened Digitally signed by DEVENDRA CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 DEVENDRA KUMAR The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. KUMAR Date: 4/29 2026.02.07 16:20:19 +0530 glasses to Varanasi but the same got damaged and the defendant no. 1 issued damage certificate dated 07.03.2022 and raised a loss of Rs.
20,84,987/-. Defendant has prayed that this suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. Initially, the defendant no. 2 joined as the plaintiff no. 2, but subsequently, he was transposed to the defendant no. 2 vide order dated 23.10.2024.
5. Plaintiff has not filed replication to written statements and opportunity of the plaintiff to file replication was closed vide order dated 01.08.2025.
6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed vide order dated 01.08.2025 as under:
ISSUES:-
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of amount of Rs.
17,52,637/- as prayed for? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest against decretal amount as prayed for, if so, at what rate and for what period?
3. Relief
7. To prove the case, the plaintiff has examined PW1 Ms. Priya Sinha, Manager, who has deposed in verbatim of plaint and has relied upon documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/8, except documents Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/4, which were de-exhibited and read as Mark A to Mark C. Digitally signed by DEVENDRA CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 KUMAR The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. DEVENDRA 5/29 KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 16:20:26 +0530 7.1. During cross examination, PW1 has deposed that she did not visit the place of incident but surveyor to investigate was appointed to assess the losses as per norms. It is further deposed that date of incident was on 14.02.2022 but it is not within her knowledge who was negligent during this incident. It is further deposed that as per survey report, no negligence was recorded but it is denied that incident did not occur due to negligence of truck driver, or that one Nilgai suddenly came in front of vehicle and caused accident. It is admitted that copy of policy placed on record is different to the policy regarding which surveyor prepared his report. It is further admitted that the plaintiff has filed this suit on the basis of surveyor report and GD entry No. 8 dated 15.02.2022.
7.1.1. PW1 has admitted that legal notice u/s 10 of Carrier Act, 1865/ u/s 16 of Carriage by Road Act, 2007 is to be issued within six months of the incident, but in this case, it was issued beyond six months. It is denied that the defendant no. 1 has mentioned in invoice dt. 14.02.2022 that it shall be not be responsible for breakage, leakage etc. It is further admitted that claim has been processed as per surveyor report as well as terms and conditions of policy, but it is denied that the defendant no. 1 is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff company. It is admitted that power of attorney / authority of AR, who has filed this case, is not on record.
8. Defendant no. 1 has examined DW1 Nirbhay Yadav, Proprietor of M/s Yadav Transporter, who has deposed in verbatim of his WS.
8.1. During cross examination, DW1 has deposed that he contacted M/s Aggarwal Glass Works for transportation of goods/ glasses from Kala Amb, Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 DEVENDRA The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. DEVENDRA KUMAR 6/29 KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 16:20:32 +0530 Ambala to Banaras, but he has not filed copy of bilty. It is further deposed that name of his driver was Prem Singh, who was driving vehicle on the day of incident and informed him about incident wherein goods got damaged. It is further deposed that he visited the spot of incident after 2-3 hours but did not witness this incident. It is further deposed that he heard that one Nilgai came in front of vehicle and resulted into this incident and visited the spot and observed a turn on the road but it is denied that his driver could not control his vehicle on turn and caused accident. It is further deposed that he did not see any Nilgai at the spot. It is further admitted that the defendant no. 2 demanded damage certificate after 1½ months of the incident and he issued accordingly. It is further admitted that he received a legal notice from the defendant no. 2 after 2-3 months of the incident. It is further deposed that he did not receive any notice from the plaintiff company to pay damages.
9. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. My issue wise findings are as under: -
ISSUE No. 1: - The onus to prove this issue was put upon the plaintiff and to discharge the onus, the plaintiff has examined PW1 Priya Sinha, who has deposed in verbatim of plaint and has deposed on the basis of official record. However, before deciding this case on merit, it is necessary to determine the authority of AR to institute this suit, as both the defendants have challenged the authority of AR, Ms. Prabha Malhotra to institute this suit.
Digitally
signed by
DEVENDRA
CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 DEVENDRA KUMAR
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. 7/29
KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07
16:20:37
+0530
Authority of AR to institute of this suit
10. Admittedly, a civil suit by a company / corporation has to be singed and verified by Authorized Representative in terms of Order 29 Rule 1 of CPC, whereas appointment of Recognized Representative must be in terms of Order 3 Rule 2 of CPC. Order 29 Rule 1 is as under:
Order 29 Rule 1. Subscription and verification of pleading.-- In suit by or against a corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of the corporation by the secretary or by any director or other principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case.
11. In view of Order 29 Rule 1 of CPC, persons mentioned must sign and verify pleadings like Secretary, Director, or any other Principal Officer of the company / corporation. They must sign and verify pleadings besides Authorized Representatives appointed by a company / corporation on its behalf through Board Resolution. The authority of other recognized agents has been prescribed under Order 3 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC as under:
Rule 1. Appearances, etc., may be in person, by recognized agent or by pleader.--Any appearance, application or act in or to any Court, required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such Court, may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent, or by a pleader [appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be, on his behalf :
Provided that any such appearance shall, if the Court so directs, be made by the party in person.
Rule 2. Recognised agents.--The recognised agents of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are--
(a) persons holding powers-of-attorney, authorising them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties;
(b) persons carrying on trade or business for and in the names of Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 DEVENDRA The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. DEVENDRA KUMAR 8/29 KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 16:20:42 +0530 parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court within which limits the appearance, application or act is made or done, in matters connected with such trade or business only, where no other agent is expressly authorised to make and do such appearances, applications and acts.
12. In view of abovesaid legal proposition, it stands proved that recognized representative may be authorized by way of power of attorney / resolution of Board of Directors in terms of Section 291 of Companies Act, 1956 (Now corresponding section under Companies Act, 2013). The authority of Authorized Representative under Order 3 Rule 1 & 2 CPC viz-
a-viz signing authority of authorized representative under Order 29 rule 1 & 2 of CPC has been defined in case titled Nibro Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (1991) 70 Comp Case 388 (Delhi) as under:
Order 3, rule 1 provides that any appearance, application or act in or to any court required or authorise by law can be made or done by the party in person or by his recognized agent or by a pleader appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be, on his behalf. Provided of course, such an appearance, application or act in or to any court is required or authorised by law to be done or done by a party in such court. Where, however, there is an express provision of law, then that provision will prevail. Thus, if an authority is given to a pleader or a recognised agent as provided by law, the recognised agent or pleader can file an appearance or file a suit in court if the party himself is not in a position to file it. In my view, if a party is a company or a corporation, the recognised agent or a pleader has to be authorise by law to file such a plaint. Such an authority can be given to a pleader or an agent in the case of a company by a person specifically authorised in this behalf. In other words, a pleader or an agent can be authorised to file a suit on behalf of a company only by an authorised representative of the company. If a director or a secretary is authorised by law, then he can certainly give the authority to another person as provided under Order 3, rule 1.
The authority of a principal officer of a company in relation to suits filed on behalf of the limited company does not extend beyond what is laid down in Order 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That provision does not entitle the principal officer of a company to file a suit on its Digitally signed CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 by DEVENDRA The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. KUMAR 9/29 DEVENDRA Date:
KUMAR 2026.02.07
16:20:48
+0530
behalf and for that the authority has to be found either in the articles of association of the company or in the resolution of its board of directors. In the articles of association of several companies, provision is generally made authorising their managing directors and other officers to file and defend suits on their behalf. Similarly, the board of directors of a company can authorise the institution of a suit on behalf of the company by a resolution. In the case of some companies the articles empower the managing director or directors to appoint general attorneys and general managers and given them authority to institute suits on behalf of the company. But in the absence of any proof in regard to any such power having been conferred on Shri Ram Lal Choudhary, it is not possible to accept his statement that he was authorised to file the suit as the principal officer of the plaintiff hotel.
It is well-settled that under section 291 of the Companies Act except where express provision is made that the powers of a company in respect of a particular matter are to be exercised by the company in general meeting, in all other cases the board of directors are entitled to exercise all its powers. Individual directors have such powers only as are vested in them by the memorandum and articles. It is true that ordinarily the court will not unsuit a person on account of technicalities. However, the question of authority to institute a suit on behalf of a company is not a technical matter. It has far-reaching effects. It often affects the policy and finances of the company. Thus , unless a power to institute a suit is specifically conferred on a particular director, he has no authority to institute a suit on behalf of the company. Needless to say such a power can be conferred by the board of directors only by passing a resolution in that regard.
13. Further, in another judgment titled United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar, (1996) 6 SCC 660, it has held that;
9. In cases like the present where suits are instituted or defended on behalf of a public corporation, public interest should not be permitted to be defeated on a mere technicality. Procedural defects which do not go to the root of the matter should not be permitted to defeat a just cause. There is sufficient power in the courts, under the Code of Civil Procedure, to ensure that injustice is not done to any party who has a just case. As far as possible a substantive right should not be allowed to be defeated on account of a procedural irregularity which is curable.
Digitally signed by DEVENDRA CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 DEVENDRA KUMAR The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. KUMAR Date: 10/29 2026.02.07 16:20:56 +0530
10. It cannot be disputed that a company like the appellant can sue and be sued in its own name. Under Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure a pleading is required to be signed by the party and its pleader, if any. As a company is a juristic entity it is obvious that some person has to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company. Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, provides that in a suit by or against a corporation the Secretary or any Director or other Principal Officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case might sign and verify on behalf of the company. Reading Order 6 Rule 14 together with Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure it would appear that even in the absence of any formal letter of authority or power of attorney having been executed a person referred to in Rule 1 of Order 29 can, by virtue of the office which he holds, sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the corporation. In addition thereto and dehors Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a company is a juristic entity, it can duly authorise any person to sign the plaint or the written statement on its behalf and this would be regarded as sufficient compliance with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A person may be expressly authorised to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company, for example by the Board of Directors passing a resolution to that effect or by a power of attorney being executed in favour of any individual. In absence thereof and in cases where pleadings have been signed by one of its officers a corporation can ratify the said action of its officer in signing the pleadings. Such ratification can be express or implied. The court can, on the basis of the evidence on record, and after taking all the circumstances of the case, specially with regard to the conduct of the trial, come to the conclusion that the corporation had ratified the act of signing of the pleading by its officer.
13. The court had to be satisfied that Shri L.K. Rohatgi could sign the plaint on behalf of the appellant. The suit had been filed in the name of the appellant company; full amount of court fee had been paid by the appellant-Bank; documentary as well as oral evidence had been led on behalf of the appellant and the trial of the suit before the Sub- Judge, Ambala, had continued for about two years. It is difficult, in these circumstances, even to presume that the suit had been filed and tried without the appellant having authorised the institution of the same. The only reasonable conclusion which we can come to is that Shri L.K. Rohatgi must have been authorised to sign the plaint and, in any case, it must be held that the appellant had ratified the action of Shri L.K. Rohatgi in signing the plaint and thereafter it continued with the suit.
Digitally
signed by
DEVENDRA
CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 DEVENDRA KUMAR
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. KUMAR 11/29
Date:
2026.02.07
16:21:03
+0530
14. A combined reading of both abovesaid judgments made it clear that pleadings must be signed by persons mentioned under Order 29 Rule 1, or by any Authorized Agent / Representative. The authorization of authorized representative may be in terms of Order 3 Rule 2 of CPC, or by the Company through Resolution of Board of Directors in terms of Section 291 of Companies Act, 1956 (or corresponding section under Companies Act, 2013). However, authority of a person/s mentioned under Order 29 Rule 1 of CPC to sign pleadings must be proved through Article of Association, or Resolution of Board of Directors as held in case titled State Bank of Travancore v. Kingston Computers (I) (P) Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 524 as under:
14. In our view, the judgment under challenge is liable to be set aside because the respondent had not produced any evidence to prove that Shri Ashok K. Shukla was appointed as a Director of the Company and a resolution was passed by the Board of Directors of the Company to file a suit against the appellant and authorised Shri Ashok K. Shukla to do so. The letter of authority issued by Shri Raj K. Shukla, who described himself as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, was nothing but a scrap of paper because no resolution was passed by the Board of Directors delegating its powers to Shri Raj K. Shukla to authorise another person to file a suit on behalf of the Company.
13. The Division Bench of the High Court did take cognizance of the fact that the Company had not summoned any witness from the office of the Registrar of Companies to prove that Shri Ashok K. Shukla was a Director of the Company and that the minute book of the Company had not been produced to prove the appointment of Shri Ashok K. Shukla as a Director, but reversed the finding of the trial court on Issue 1 on the basis of the authority letter issued by Shri Raj K. Shukla and resolutions dated 14-2-2001 and 19-4-2001, by which the Board of Directors of the Company had authorised some persons to operate the bank account.
In view of abovesaid law, it stands proved that to maintain a civil suit, it must be instituted by an authorized representative.
Digitally
signed by
CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 DEVENDRA
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. DEVENDRA KUMAR 12/29
KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07
16:22:14
+0530
15. Now the case in hand has to be seen. Admittedly, Manager of the plaintiff Ms. Prabha Malhotra has filed this suit on behalf of the plaintiff. However, no power of attorney of AR was placed on record. PW1 Priya Sinha has duly admitted during cross examination that the plaintiff has not filed any power of attorney / authority of AR to institute this suit. As such, the plaintiff failed to file power of attorney / authority of AR to file this case. However, the plaintiff moved an application subsequently to file power of attorney on record, which was allowed and power of attorney was taken on record.
16. However, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff has filed power of attorney of AR subsequently with the permission of the court and has satisfy the compliance of Order 29 Rule 1 of CPC and this suit is maintainable. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for defendants has argued that merely filing of document is not sufficient to prove a document and document must be proved by witness by tendering into evidence, which is not done in this case, due to power of attorney of AR of the plaintiff could not be proved and due institution of this case could not be proved and suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
17. Admittedly, initially, the plaintiff did not file any power of attorney of AR, Ms. Priya Malhotra on record and this fact has been duly admitted by PW1 that power of attorney of AR was not on record. However, the plaintiff filed an application subsequently to file power of attorney on record, which was allowed by this court vide order dated 06.11.2025. As such, power of attorney of AR placed on record after closure of the Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 DEVENDRA The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. DEVENDRA KUMAR 13/29 KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 16:22:19 +0530 plaintiff's evidence but this power of attorney was not tendered into evidence and could not become part of evidence. Now issue arises as to whether merely filing of a document also proves it. Admittedly, placing of document is one thing and proving it another. A suit may be filed by placing of power of attorney / board resolution on record in terms of Order 29 Rule 1 of CPC but it is always subject to proving of it through evidence, which is not done in this case.
18. Admittedly, merely filing of a document does not prove it and evidence has to be led to prove genuineness of such document to authenticate by the court. However, in this case, initially, the plaintiff failed to file any power of attorney on record and has also neither examined Ms. Priya Malhotra, AR nor PW1 has tendered this power of attorney in evidence to prove it, due to power of attorney of AR could not be proved merely by placing it on record.
19. No doubt, PW1 has proved her authority / Power of Attorney Ex.PW1/A to depose before the court but she has not proved power of attorney of Ms. Priya Malhotra, who instituted this suit on behalf of the plaintiff. As such, in the absence of proving power of attorney of Ms. Priya Malhotra, due institution of this suit could not be proved.
20. Ld. Counsel for defendants has further argued that the plaintiff has not proved board resolution to prove power of attorney of PW1, which is Ex.PW1/A. However, proving of resolution of board of directors is not necessary, if a power of attorney has been duly notarized and authenticated Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 DEVENDRA The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. DEVENDRA KUMAR 14/29 KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 16:22:24 +0530 before notary public. Admittedly, power of attorney Ex.PW1/A has been executed by Regional Manager of the plaintiff in favor of PW1 and the defendants have not pointed out any defect in this power of attorney to doubt it. Section 84 of BSA prescribes a presumption of authenticity in favor of execution of power of attorney, which was to be rebutted by the defendants and could not be rebutted merely by putting a suggestion that executant of power of attorney Ex.PW1/A was not authorized to execute it. As such, presumption of authenticity u/s 84 of BSA could not be rebutted by the defendant. Even otherwise, a witness having personal knowledge may depose without any power of attorney and PW1 has deposed on the basis of record and her authority to depose could not be disputed. As such, this suit has not been duly instituted by AR but PW1 has authority to depose.
Locus Standi of plaintiff to file this suit
21. Plaintiff is an insurance company and has filed this suit on the basis of letter of subrogation after making payment of damages against insurance policy to the defendant no.2. However, Ld. Counsel for defendants has raised legal issue that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit, as the defendant no.1 has no privity of contract with the plaintiff. It is further argued that the defendant no.2 and the plaintiff have privity of contract by virtue of insurance policy and the plaintiff has already paid claim of the defendant no.2 and now wants to recover it on the basis of letter of subrogation and power of attorney. It is further argued that even this suit ought to be filed by the plaintiff in the name of the defendant no.2, if the plaintiff wanted to recovery amount on behalf of the defendant no.2, but Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 DEVENDRA The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. DEVENDRA KUMAR 15/29 KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 16:22:30 +0530 suit has been filed in the name of insurance company, due to it is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
22. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for insurance company has argued that the plaintiff has paid damages to the defendant no.2 in pursuance of insurance policy but the defendant no.1 caused damages to the consignment and same is liable to be recovered from the defendant no.1, as damage was not pursuant of Act of God. It is further argued that letter of subrogation Ex.PW1/8 is well known document and sufficient to authorize the plaintiff company to file this suit in its name and to seek damages on behalf of the defendant no.2 and it is prayed that this suit is liable to be decreed.
23. Admittedly, the plaintiff is an insurance company and has filed this suit to recover damages paid to the defendant no.2 in pursuance of insurance policy of goods being transported by the defendant no.1 and got damaged on the way. Ex.PW1/8 is a letter of Subrogation & Special Power of Attorney, which has authorized the plaintiff to file this suit. However, before deciding nature of document Ex.PW1/8 and to determine locus standi of the plaintiff, it is necessary to go through law of subrogation in insurance cases. Meaning of subrogation has been defined in case titled Ganeshi Lal v. Joti Pershad, (1952) 2 SCC 373 as under;
9. If we remember that the doctrine of subrogation which means substitution of one person in place of another and giving him the rights of the latter is essentially an equitable doctrine in its origin and application, and if we examine the reason behind it, the answer to the question which we have to decide in this appeal is not difficult. Equity insists on the ultimate payment of a debt by one who in justice and good conscience is bound to pay it, and it is well recognised that where there are several joint debtors, the person making the payment Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 DEVENDRA The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. DEVENDRA KUMAR 16/29 KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 16:22:35 +0530 is a principal debtor as regards the part of the liability he is to discharge and a surety in respect of the shares of the rest of the debtors. Such being the legal position as among the co-mortgagors, if one of them redeems a mortgage over the property which belongs jointly to himself and the rest, equity confers on him a right to reimburse himself for the amount spent in excess by him in the matter of redemption; he can call upon the co-mortgagors to contribute towards the excess which he has paid over his own share. This proposition is postulated in several authorities.
24. Further, in case titled Oberai Forwarding Agency v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 407, it has observed that;
17. In its literal sense, subrogation is the substitution of one person for another. The doctrine of subrogation confers upon the insurer the right to receive the benefit of such rights and remedies as the assured has against third parties in regard to the loss to the extent that the insurer has indemnified the loss and made it good. The insurer is, therefore, entitled to exercise whatever rights the assured possesses to recover to that extent compensation for the loss, but it must do so in the name of the assured.
25. Further in case titled Economic Transport Organization v. Charan Spg. Mills (P) Ltd., (2010) 4 SCC 114, it has held that;
26. Subrogation, as an equitable assignment, is inherent, incidental and collateral to a contract of indemnity, which occurs automatically, when the insurer settles the claim under the policy, by reimbursing the entire loss suffered by the assured. It need not be evidenced by any writing. But where the insurer does not settle the claim of the assured fully, by reimbursing the entire loss, there will be no equitable assignment of the claim enabling the insurer to stand in the shoes of the assured, but only a right to recover from the assured, any amount remaining out of the compensation recovered by the assured from the wrongdoer, after the assured fully recovers his loss. To avoid any dispute with the assured as to the right of subrogation and extent of its rights, the insurers usually reduce the terms of subrogation into writing in the form of a letter of subrogation which enables and authorises the insurer to recover the amount settled and paid by the insurer, from the third-party wrongdoer as a subrogee-cum-attorney.
Digitally signed by DEVENDRA CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 DEVENDRA KUMAR The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. 17/29 KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 16:22:40 +0530
27. When the insurer obtains an instrument from the assured on settlement of the claim, whether it will be a deed of subrogation, or subrogation-cum-assignment, would depend upon the intention of parties as evidenced by the wording of the document. The title or caption of the document, by itself, may not be conclusive. It is possible that the document may be styled as "subrogation" but may contain in addition an assignment in regard to the balance of the claim, in which event it will be a deed of subrogation-cum-
assignment. It may be a pure and simple subrogation but may inadvertently or by way of excessive caution use words more appropriate to an assignment. If the terms clearly show that the intention was to have only a subrogation, use of the words "assign, transfer and abandon in favour of" would in the context be construed as referring to subrogation and nothing more.
28. We may, therefore, classify subrogations under three broad categories:
(i) subrogation by equitable assignment;
(ii) subrogation by contract; and
(iii) subrogation-cum-assignment.
28.1. In the first category, the subrogation is not evidenced by any document, but is based on the insurance policy and the receipt issued by the assured acknowledging the full settlement of the claim relating to the loss. Where the insurer has reimbursed the entire loss incurred by the assured, it can sue in the name of the assured for the amount paid by it to the assured. But where the insurer has reimbursed only a part of the loss, in settling the insurance claim, the insurer has to wait for the assured to sue and recover compensation from the wrongdoer; and when the assured recovers compensation, the assured is entitled to first appropriate the same towards the balance of his loss (which was not received from the insurer) so that he gets full reimbursement of his loss and the costs, if any, incurred by him for such recovery. The insurer will be entitled only to whatever balance remaining, for reimbursement of what it paid to the assured.
28.2. In the second category, the subrogation is evidenced by an instrument. To avoid any dispute about the right to claim reimbursement, or to settle the priority of inter se claims or to confirm the quantum of reimbursement in pursuance of the subrogation, and to ensure cooperation by the assured in suing the wrongdoer, the insurer usually obtains a letter of subrogation in writing, specifying its rights vis-à-vis the assured. The letter of subrogation is a contractual Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 DEVENDRA The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. DEVENDRA KUMAR 18/29 KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 16:22:56 +0530 arrangement which crystallises the rights of the insurer vis-à-vis the assignee. On execution of a letter of subrogation, the insurer becomes entitled to recover in terms of it, a sum not exceeding what was paid by it under the contract of insurance by suing in the name of the assured. Even where the insurer had settled only a part of the loss incurred by the assured, on recovery of the claim from the wrongdoer, the insurer may, if the letter of subrogation so authorises, first appropriate what it had paid to the assured and pay only the balance, if any, to the assured.
28.3. The third category is where the assured executes a letter of subrogation-cum-assignment enabling the insurer retain the entire amount recovered (even if it is more than what was paid to the assured) and giving an option to sue in the name of the assured or to sue in its own name.
29. In all three types of subrogation, the insurer can sue the wrongdoer in the name of the assured. This means that the insurer requests the assured to file the suit/complaint and has the option of joining as co-plaintiff. Alternatively, the insurer can obtain a special power of attorney from the assured and then to sue the wrongdoer in the name of the assured as his attorney.
30. The assured has no right to deny the equitable right of subrogation of the insurer in accordance with law, even whether there is no writing to support it. But the assured whose claim is settled by the insurer, only in respect of a part of the loss may insist that when compensation is recovered from the wrongdoer he will first appropriate the same, to recover the balance of his loss. The assured can also refuse to execute a subrogation-cum-assignment which has the effect of taking away his right to receive the balance of the loss. But once a subrogation is reduced to writing, the rights inter se between the assured and the insurer will be regulated by the terms agreed, which is a matter of negotiation between the assured and the insurer.
35. The principles relating to subrogation can therefore be summarised thus:
(i) Equitable right of subrogation arises when the insurer settles the claim of the assured, for the entire loss. When there is an equitable subrogation in favour of the insurer, the insurer is allowed to stand in the shoes of the assured and enforce the rights of the assured against the wrongdoer.
(ii) Subrogation does not terminate nor puts an end to the right of the assured to sue the wrongdoer and recover the damages for the loss.
Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 DEVENDRA The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. DEVENDRA KUMAR 19/29 KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 16:23:03 +0530 Subrogation only entitles the insurer to receive back the amount paid to the assured, in terms of the principles of subrogation.
(iii) Where the assured executes a letter of subrogation, reducing the terms of subrogation, the rights of the insurer vis-à-vis the assured will be governed by the terms of the letter of subrogation.
(iv) A subrogation enables the insurer to exercise the rights of the assured against third parties in the name of the assured. Consequently, any plaint, complaint or petition for recovery of compensation can be filed in the name of the assured, or by the assured represented by the insurer as subrogee-cum-attorney, or by the assured and the insurer as co-plaintiffs or co-complainants.
(v) Where the assured executed a subrogation-cum-assignment in favour of the insurer (as contrasted from a subrogation), the assured is left with no right or interest. Consequently, the assured will no longer be entitled to sue the wrongdoer on its own account and for its own benefit. But as the instrument is a subrogation-cum-assignment, and not a mere assignment, the insurer has the choice of suing in its own name, or in the name of the assured, if the instrument so provides. The insurer becomes entitled to the entire amount recovered from the wrongdoer, that is, not only the amount that the insurer had paid to the assured, but also any amount received in excess of what was paid by it to the assured, if the instrument so provides.
26. In view of abovesaid law, it stands proved that the plaintiff is an insurance company of the defendant no.2 and insured goods of the defendant no.2 for transportation from Kala Amb Industrial Area to Banaras (Varanasi). Defendant no.1 has issued the consignment damage certificate Mark C to prove that the consignment was booked and got damaged. If the consignment got damaged and the defendant no.1 has issued Mark C and the plaintiff has also paid claim amount of the defendant no.2 on the basis of surveyor report Mark B, then insurance company has right to recover claim amount, provided it is covered within the preview insurance policy. The contents of Ex.PW1/8 show that the defendant no.2 authorized the plaintiff to recover amount of Rs. 17,52,637/- paid to the Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 DEVENDRA The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. DEVENDRA KUMAR 20/29 KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 16:23:09 +0530 defendant no.2 in its own name or in the name of the defendant no.2 and undertook to cooperate thereby meaning that suit filed by insurance company is very well maintainable in its own name and the plaintiff has locus standi to file this case.
Service of Mandatory Legal Notice under The Carriage by Road Act, 2007
27. Admittedly this suit has been filed under The Carriage by Road Act, 2007. Initially, The Carriage Act, 1865 was dealing with such claims arising out of road damages viz-a-viz insurance policy, but Section 22 of The Carriage By Road Act, 2007 has repealed old Act. Section 10 of The Carriage Act, 1865 prescribed issuance of mandatory notice before filing any claim against carrier, which is now Section 16 of The Carriage by Road Act, 2007. Ld. Counsel for defendants has argued that the plaintiff has failed to serve legal notice upon the defendant no.1 within the period of 180 days, due to this suit is not maintainable. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has opposed this submission and has submitted that legal notice Ex.PW1/6 has already served upon the defendants, due to this claim of the plaintiff is within limitation.
28. Before deciding rival contentions, it is necessary to go through relevant Section 16 of The Carriage by Road Act, 2007 as under:
Section.16. Notice for institution of a suit.--No suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted against a common carrier for any loss of, or damage to, the consignment, unless notice in writing of the loss or damage to the consignment has been served on the common carrier before the institution of the suit or other legal proceeding and within one hundred and eighty days from the date of booking of the consignment by the consignor.
Digitally
signed by
CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 DEVENDRA
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. 21/29
DEVENDRA KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07
16:23:14
+0530
29. In view of abovesaid section, it is clear that no legal proceeding including a civil suit may be filed against common carrier without serving a legal notice u/s 16 of the Act. This Section 16 came into interpretation before Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Essemm Logistics v. DARCL Logistics Ltd., (2023) 9 SCC 753 and relevant observations are as under:
10. The aforesaid Section 16 of the new Act is more or less in pari materia with Section 10 of the Carriers Act, 1865 which has been repealed. It also lays down that no suit or legal proceedings shall be instituted against a common carrier for any loss of, or damage to, a consignment unless a notice in writing of such loss to the consignment has been served upon the carrier before the institution of the suit or the legal proceedings within six months from the date of booking of the consignment by the consignor. A close look to the above provision would reveal that it not only bars the suit but also legal proceedings which were not included in the earlier provision of Section 10 of the Carriers Act, 1865. The other deviation is by the use of word "consignment" in place of "goods entrusted". In other words, both the aforesaid provisions though Section 10 of the Carriers Act stands repealed and ceased to be in force, provides for a notice before instituting any suit/legal proceedings against a common carrier for any loss or damage to the consignment. The aforesaid provision is only in context of the institution of a suit or a legal proceeding for the loss of or damage to the consignment and not in respect of any other kind of loss or damage or claim other than to the loss or damage to the consignment.
15. A plain reading of Section 16 of the new Act reveals that it is applicable only in respect of institution of a suit or legal proceeding against a common carrier for any loss of, or damage to, the consignment. The use of the word "consignment" in the said provision is very material. It denotes that the suit and legal proceedings in connection with the loss or damage to the consignment alone are covered by it for which purpose, a notice is mandatory. The said provision has no application in reference to loss of any other kind or the suit or legal proceedings instituted for recovery of damages in respect of loss of different nature.
17. The provision of Section 16 of the new Act does not come into play vis-à-vis the condition of giving a notice in respect of claims for damages for the loss of reputation, business opportunity, etc. as such claims are not in connection with the damage or loss to the consignment. Digitally signed by DEVENDRA CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 DEVENDRA KUMAR The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr.KUMAR 22/29 Date:
2026.02.07 16:23:20 +0530
30. After going through the abovesaid case law, it stands proved that Section 16 is applicable qua damages against common carriage and not for any other types of damages like damages for loss of reputation, business opportunity and associated wrongs, but 6 months' notice is mandatory before filing of any claim of damages arising out of the consignment damage by road carriage.
31. Admittedly, in this case, the consignment was booked on 14.02.2022 and legal notice Ex.PW1/6 was issued on 20.09.2022 and dispatched on 22.09.2022 at 12.35 PM. Accident which caused damage to the consignment occurred on 15.02.2022 and limitation to serve legal notice was within 180 days i.e. upto 15.08.2022, whereas issued on 20.09.2022.
As such, legal notice Ex.PW1/6 was served beyond the period of 180 days and suit is bad for the want of mandatory legal notice. No doubt the defendant no.2 also served a notice upon the defendant no.1 but neither the plaintiff nor defendant no.2 has relied upon this notice. Even otherwise this legal notice was vague and service of any legal notice by the defendant no.2 could not be proved and suit is barred by section 16 of The Carriage by Road Act, 2007.
Negligence of common carrier during accident
32. Plaintiff has alleged that the defendant no. 2 insured goods / glasses against insurance policy Ex.PW1/1 and booked the consignment with the defendant no.1 to transport the consignment from Kala Amb Industrial Area to Banaras (Varanasi) but the consignment could not reach to its Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 DEVENDRA The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. DEVENDRA KUMAR 23/29 KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 16:23:26 +0530 destination. It is further alleged that goods were damaged during accident and the plaintiff has alleged that accident occurred due to negligence of driver of the defendant no.1. It is further alleged that since accident occurred due to negligence of driver of the defendant no.1, accordingly the defendant no.1 is liable to pay damages. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 has argued that goods got damaged due to Act of God, as a Nilgai suddenly came in front of truck and caused accident and it was not negligence of driver. In support of his arguments, Ld. counsel for defendant no.1 has cited DD entry lodged with Kala Amb Police Station by which it was concluded that accident occurred due to fault of Nilgai. It is prayed that this claim is not maintainable.
33. Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 has argued that this accident occurred as one Nilgai suddenly came in front of truck and driver could not manage truck and overturned. However, this fact could not be proved. Though DW1 has relied upon GD No. 8 dated 15.02.2022 lodged with PS Kala Amb Police Station as DW1/1, yet this GD entry got de-exhibited after objection of the plaintiff that GD was not on record. However, while going through the case file, it was revealed that GD No.8 was on record. The contents of GD shows that GD was recorded on the basis of statement of driver Prem Singh and nothing fishy was found during the incident. However, the defendant no.1 has neither examined any eye witness to this incident nor driver of vehicle to prove mode and manner of accident, whereas DW1 was not eye witness to incident, due to it could not be proved that this accident did not occur due to negligence of driver of the defendant no.1. As such, there is no evidence on record to prove that Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 DEVENDRA The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. 24/29 DEVENDRA KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 16:23:33 +0530 accident occurred due to sudden appearance of Nilgai in front of truck and not any other reason.
34. So far as legal proposition regarding negligence during accident is concerned, sections 12 & 16 of The Carriage by Road Act, 2007 deal with such proposition as under:
Section-12. Conditions limiting exonerating the liability of the common carrier.--(1) Every common carrier shall be liable to the consignor for the loss or damage to any consignment in accordance with the goods forwarding note, where such loss or damage has arisen on account of any criminal act of the common carrier, or any of his servants or agents.
(2) In any suit brought against the common carrier for the loss, damage or non-delivery of consignment, it shall not be necessary for the plaintiff to prove that such loss, damage or non-delivery was owing to the negligence or criminal act of the common carrier, or any of his servants or agents.
(3) Where any consignment has been detained for examination or scrutiny by a competent authority and upon such examination or scrutiny it is found that certain prohibited goods or goods on which due tax was not paid or insufficiently paid have been entrusted to the common carrier by the consignor which have not been described in the goods forwarding note, the cost of such examination or scrutiny shall be borne by the consignor and the common carrier shall not be liable for any loss, damage or deterioration caused by such detention of the consignment for examination or scrutiny:
Provided that the onus of proving that such incorrect description of goods in the goods forwarding note was received from the consignor shall be on the common carrier.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "competent authority" means any person or authority who is empowered to examine or scrutinise goods by or under any law for the time being in force to secure compliance of provisions of that law.
Section-17. General responsibility of common carrier.--Save as otherwise provided in this Act, a common carrier shall be responsible Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 DEVENDRA The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. 25/29 DEVENDRA KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 16:23:40 +0530 for the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration in transit or non- delivery of any consignment entrusted to him for carriage, arising from any cause except the following, namely:--
(a) act of God;
(b) act of war or public enemy;
(c) riots and civil commotion;
(d) arrest, restraint or seizure under legal process;
(e) order or restriction or prohibition imposed by the Central Government or a State Government or by an officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government or a State Government authorised by it in this behalf:
Provided that the common carrier shall not be relieved of its responsibility for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non- delivery of the consignment if the common carrier could have avoided such loss, destruction, damage or deterioration or non-delivery had the common carrier exercised due deligence and care in the carriage of the consignment.
35. In fact, section 17 of the Act prescribes certain grounds which may be considered to escape liability to pay damage of the consignment. Defendant no.1 has attempted to bring this accident within Act of God to escape liability to pay damages, however suddenly coming of a Nilgai in front of running truck and overturning it suggests excessive speed of truck and resulted accident. In fact, such act cannot be an Act of God. Act of God, as clear by its name is which is not in hand of a human being, like flood, rainfall, frost, drought, wind, hurricane, earthquake etc., are the acts of nature. As such, those acts which cannot be anticipated by its magnitude and consequences are covered by such acts, whereas in this case, driver of the defendant no.1 was passing through a forest and could have easily anticipated that any animal may suddenly come in front of vehicle and was Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 DEVENDRA The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. DEVENDRA KUMAR 26/29 KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 16:23:46 +0530 supposed to drive in manageable speed, whereas overturning of vehicle speaks lot about negligence of driver and it was not an Act of God.
Whether plaintiff has proved insurance policy to claim damages
36. Plaintiff has claimed recovery of damages arising out of Marine Cargo Open Police No. 32010021210200000011 valid during the period w.e.f. 15.01.2022 to 14.01.2023, but Ld. Counsel for defendants has argued that the plaintiff has not proved actual insurance policy to raise this claim. It is further argued that a wrong policy PW1/1 has been proved by the plaintiff and PW1 has admitted during cross examination that it is a wrong policy, due to suit is not maintainable. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff has already filed correct insurance policy on record with permission of the court, due to the plea taken by the defendants is not sustainable.
37. Admittedly the plaintiff has filed this suit regarding Marine Cargo Open Police No. 32010021210200000011 valid during the period from 15.01.2022 to 14.01.2023. However, PW1 has proved policy Ex.PW1/1 i.e. Policy No. 32010021200200000016 valid for the period from 15.01.2022 to 14.01.2023, which is a different policy to Policy No. 32010021210200000011. PW1 has admitted during cross examination that the plaintiff has filed a wrong policy on record, however after PE, the plaintiff moved an application to place on record correct insurance policy, which was allowed and correct insurance policy was taken on record. However, merely filing of insurance policy could not prove it, as PE was Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 DEVENDRA The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. 27/29 DEVENDRA KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 16:23:52 +0530 already over when this policy was filed on record and the plaintiff did not attempt to prove it by tendering into evidence. As such, insurance policy proved on record and survey report Mark B are pertaining to different policies.
38. As such, it stands proved that the defendant no.2 booked the consignment of glasses with the defendant no.1 to deliver it at Varanasi, but it got damaged due to negligence of the defendant no.1. However, the plaintiff has failed to prove due institution of this suit for the want of power of attorney of Ms. Prabha Malhotra. Further, this suit is also barred u/s 16 of The Carriage of Road Act, 2007 for the want of valid legal notice.
Plaintiff has also proved a wrong insurance policy, accordingly, the plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus to prove this issue and issue no.1 is decided in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
39. ISSUE NO. 2:- The onus to prove this issue was fixed upon the plaintiff but the plaintiff has failed to discharge onus to prove issue no.1, accordingly the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief and has failed to discharge the onus to prove issue no. 2 and this issue is also decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
40. Relief: - Since the plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus to prove both issues, accordingly the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief, hence this suit is hereby dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared. No order as to cost.
Digitally
signed by
DEVENDRA
CS (Comm) No. 37/2024 DEVENDRA KUMAR
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. KUMAR Date: 28/29
2026.02.07
16:23:57
+0530
41. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by DEVENDRA DEVENDRA KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT 2026.02.07
16:24:02 +0530
ON 7th day of February, 2026
(DEVENDER KUMAR)
District Judge (Commercial Court-01)
East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CS (Comm) No. 37/2024
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadav Transporter & Anr. 29/29