Delhi District Court
Cec-Cici Jv And Ors vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 4 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAVINDER BEDI
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMM.)-12, (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
In the matter of:
CS (COMM) No. 1191/20
1. CEC-CICI JV
DDA Park, Model town-II
Gujrawala Town City,
Near Azadpur Metro Station,
New Delhi-110009
2. CEC International Corporation India Pvt.Ltd.
3. Continental Engineering Corporation
Both at Flat No.211, Pocket A/3,
Sector-7, Rohini,
New Delhi-110085 ........Plaintiffs
Versus
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Oriental House,
A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi-110002 ......Defendant
Date of institution of suit : 10.09.2018
Date of final arguments : 23.05.2025
Date of Judgment : 04.06.2025
Plaintiff represented by Adv. Kapil Kher and Adv Sandeep Thukral.
Defendant represented by Adv. Amandeep Singh and Adv. Dev Bhardwaj
Digitally signed
RAVINDER by RAVINDER
BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:40:46 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 1/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
JUDGMENT
1. Present is a suit instituted by Plaintiffs seeking recovery of
Rs.1,16,43,044/- alongwith interest @18% per annum pendente-lite and
future against the Defendant.
2. It is necessary to take note of the material facts as
mentioned in the Plaint.
Plaintiff no.1 (in short as Plaintiff) is a joint-venture between
Plaintiff no.2 CEC International Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.
(referred to as CICI) and Plaintiff no.3 i.e. Continental Engineering
Corporation (referred to as CEC), incorporated under the relevant
laws of Taiwan. Plaintiffs are engaged in the business of civil
construction and building construction, real estate development
and Environmental Project Development. Mr. Rajiv Kumar, is duly
authorized by Plaintiff to file the present suit.
Defendant is a Company engaged in the business of insurance and
is governed by the General Insurance Corporation of India, bound
by the rules and regulations of Insurance Regulatory and
Development Authority of India (IRDAI).
Digitally signed
RAVINDER by RAVINDER
BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:40:53 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 2/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Plaintiff no.1 was awarded the works of construction of Mass
Rapid Transport System (MRTS) for the Delhi Metro Phase-III,
Mukund Pur, Yamuna Vihar Corridor. Vide Contract no. CC-04,
Plaintiff’s work was to design and construct the tunnel by shield
TBM, tunnel by cut and cover, underground stations at Azadpur,
ramps at Mukundpur and Shalimar Bagh for the underground
works on Mukundpur-Yamuna Vihar Corridor of Delhi MRTS
Projects of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), Phase-III.
Plaintiff as per Clause-15 of the General Conditions of Contract
(GCC) with DMRC was mandated to secure an Insurance for (i)
Professional Indemnity ; (ii) Works & Contractors’ equipment ;
Injury to persons and damage to property and (iv) its workers. As
per clause 15.3 of GCC, Plaintiff was obligated to obtain a
Contractors’ All Risks Policy ( in short CAR Policy), inter-alia ,
insuring against third party liability which might arise out of
performance of its obligations under the Contract.
Plaintiff applied for a CAR Policy under joint names of its
employer i.e. DMRC and itself, with Defendant. The Defendant
issued the CAR Policy insuring the Plaintiff and DMRC against
the insured sum of Rs. 417 crore for the period commencing from
09.01.2012 upto 08.02.2016 which included maintenance period
against premium of Rs.90,66,185/- along with service tax of
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:41:00 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 3/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Rs.9,33,817/-, totalling at Rs.1,00,00,002/-.
The premium chargeable under the Policy was to be paid in 11
equal installments, as per the Schedule detailed in para no.5 of the
plaint. Policy expressly covered any third party liability with
cross liability cover along with indemnity to the extent of Rs.
5,00,00,000/- in respect of any accident arising out of either a
single event or a series of events with total indemnity limit
extending to Rs.25,00,00,000/-. The CAR policy was renewed /
extended from time to time by the Defendant including the
extension duly effected on 09.11.2017 covering the risk for the
period commencing from 09.11.2017 expiring on 08.02.2018.
Various extensions were made by way of endorsements to the CAR
policy for different periods and details of which are set out in para
no.7 of the plaint. The Plaintiff as per schedule of the premium
had paid the premium in compliance of GCC of the Contract and
as such the Plaintiff no.1 was entitled to be indemnified by the
Defendant to the extent of the sum insured under CAR Policy.
Plaintiff had been diligently executing the works awarded under
the Contract. However during the course of work at Azadpur,
Mukundpur Segment, several complaints were lodged by residents
of Model Town-III with regard to the significant damages caused
Digitally signed
RAVINDER by RAVINDER
BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:41:07 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 4/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
to their buildings due to the tunneling works carried out during the
period of 27.01.2015 to 06.04.2015. Plaintiff as per clause 5 of
the CAR policy reported the alleged losses complained of by
residents to Defendant vide mail dated 19.02.2015 . The Defendant
in response to the same, registered the claim as Claim no.
211200/44/2015/0025 and appointed M/s Select Insurance
Surveyors and Loss Assessor Pvt Ltd (inshort as ‘Surveyor’) on
09.03.2015 to carry out a Survey for assessment of losses caused
to the buildings.
Plaintiff during this period assured the residents/occupants/RWAs
of the said buildings of the repair works to be carried out by it. On
18.03.2015, the Surveyor inspected and carried out a Joint Survey
of the buildings, which suffered damage due to tunneling
activities. The Surveyor on preliminary assessment notified the
Defendant on 24.03.2015 of the estimated loss of Rs. 50 lakhs
likely to be occasioned due to tunneling activities. The Surveyor
was informed about the Pre-construction survey carried out in
March, 2015 and pre-construction building survey undertaken
around March, 2015 for assessment of the building conditions. A
Report of Pre-construction Building Surveys was submitted to the
Surveyor by Plaintiff. Some of residents were also constrained to
shift to alternative accomodation by the Plaintiff due to tunneling
activities. During course of Survey, it was revealed that major
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:41:14 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 5/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
cracks had developed to the walls resulting in damage caused to
the underneath residential building no. G-3/3, Model Town-III,
Delhi.
The Surveyor made joint visits on on 17.06.2015, 10.08.2015,
13.08.2015, 26.08.2015 and on 07.01.2016 with the Plaintiff and
the DMRC officials to carry out a detailed assessment of such
loss/damage caused to the buildings.
Plaintiff by its letter dated 05.04.2015 notified the Defendant and
Surveyor about the expenses incurred on account of treatment of
occupant Mr Chander Mohan R/o property No G-3/3, Model
Town-III, Delhi who suffered injuries i.e. fracture on neck and hip.
Plaintiff by its letter dated 15.09.2015 informed/notified the
Surveyor that it had completed the restoration/repair work and had
incurred the expenses of Rs. 78,66,922/-. By said intimation,
Plaintiff also forwarded the entire details of the such expenditure
and calling upon the Surveyor to release 75% of the said amount.
The Surveyor failed to respond to the letter of Plaintiff dated
15.09.2015. Plaintiff sent a Reminder dated 24.12.2015 to the
Surveyor. The Plaintiff submitted its Final Claim Form to the
Surveyor alongwith Claim Bills showing the expenses incurred to
carry out the repair work in its letter dated 24.12.2015 and asked
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:41:23 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 6/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
for release the claim of Rs. 78,66,922/-.
The Surveyor is stated to have submitted his Survey Report to the
Defendant in or around March, 2016 for processing such claims.
During this period, the officials of Plaintiff , DMRC, Surveyor and
the Defendant had held series of negotiations/meetings and even
prior to the assessment of such the losses. Vide several letters and
e-mails, Plaintiff had kept the Defendant duly intimated of the
various developments without concealing any fact from Defendant.
However, the failure on part of Defendant in settling the claims of
Plaintiff despite the Defendant being in the receipt of Surveyor
Report, forced the Plaintiff to sent an e-mail dated 17.04.2017
calling upon Defendant to provide the status of claims of Plaintiff.
Plaintiff also asked for a formal meeting for an expeditious
settlement of its claims. The said request was turned down by
Defendant vide its mail dated 18.04.2017 due to non-availability of
the GM-(Technical) of the Defendant.
Plaintiff sent mails dated 04.05.2016 and 11.05.2016 to the
Defendant informing that it had taken all steps for mitigation of
losses caused to the properties and Defendant was liable to
reimburse/compensate to the Plaintiff under the CAR policy. After
a series of request of the Plaintiff, a joint meeting of parties was
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:41:30 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 7/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
held on 15.03.2017, during which it was revealed by Defendant
that it was in process of seeking a legal opinion regarding its
liability towards the claims.
Plaintiff by its Letter dated 20.03.2017, again requested the
Defendant of reimbursing the claims under the CAR policy.
Plaintiff requested for a copy of the legal opinion sought by
Defendant as regards its liability in respect of claims. Both parties
met again on 27.03.2017 for updation of status regarding
Plaintiff’s claims wherein Plaintiff categorically pointed out that it
had taken all diligent steps to restrict the losses apart from
informing the Defendant of such steps for loss/damages caused to
the properties. Plaintiff had submitted all documents and
information in respect of the claims. In the meeting, it was pointed
out that claim of Plaintiff was not rejected or objected to either by
Surveyor or by Defendant and it was for the Defendant to release
the amounts of claims.
Defendant however by its Repudiation Letter dated 17.10.2017
informed the Plaintiff that claims of Plaintiff fell under section II
of the Policy, as per which, unless there was an adjudication of the
alleged losses/injury caused to third party, defendant was not
liable to indemnify the Plaintiff. The said stand of Defendant was
contrary to Section II of the CAR Policy, which envisaged as
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:41:37 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 8/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
follows:
“Section -II- Third Party Liability with Cross
liability cover
1. Limit of indemnity in respect of anyone
accident or series of accidents arising out of one
event-AOA Rs. 5 Crore
2. Total Limit of Section II during policy period-
AOY i.e. Rs. 25 Crore”
The Repudiation Letter was not only contrary to the terms of the
CAR Policy but also contrary to the recommendations of Surveyor
Report. The claims as submitted by Plaintiff and as certified by the
Surveyor were admissible to the tune of Rs. 78,66,922/-, which
the Defendant was liable to release to the Plaintiff. The Defendant
wrongfully repudiated the claims of Plaintiff and retained the
amount with them for which the Plaintiff is also entitled for an
interest of 18% per annum calculated w.e.f October, 2015 on the
amount of Rs. 78,66,922/- and thus totaling at Rs. 1,16,43,044/-.
Plaint avers that subject matter of the suit is a “Commercial
Dispute”, as provided under Section 2(1) (c)(i) of The Commercial
Courts Act, 2015. Plaintiff has prayed for recovery of amount of
Rs. 1,16,43,044/- against Defendant along-with interest pendente-
lite and future @ 18% per annum. Digitally signed
RAVINDER by RAVINDER
BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:41:46 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 9/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
3. Summons of suit were issued upon the Defendant. The
Defendant appeared and contested the suit by filing its written Statement
wherein it contended inter-alia :
Defendant was a Company incorporated under the Indian
Companies Act and written statement was filed through Ms
Mandakini Balodhi, Authorized Representative of the Defendant
working as Senior Divisional Manager in the Company.
Defendant accepted that Plaintiff was issued a CAR Policy bearing
no. 21200/44/2012/43 based upon the representations of Plaintiff
for the period of 09.01.2012 to 08.02.2015 (including 12 months
extended maintenance period). Defendant accepted that the period
was further extended on receiving requisite premiums from
Plaintiff to extend its coverage till 03.02.2018. Defendant did not
deny the damages caused to the buildings in the Model Town area
due to excavation/construction works of Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff at the time of issuance of Policy agreed to the terms
of Coverage Policy and one of the conditions under the Head
Section II of the Policy stated as :
” No admission, offer, promise, payment or
indemnity shall be made or given by or on behalf
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:41:52 +0530____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 10/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
of the Insured without the written consent of the
Company who shall be entitled, if they so desire,
to take over and conduct in the name of the
insured, the defence or settlement of any claim or
to prosecute for their own benefit in the name of
the insured any claim of indemnity or damage or
otherwise and shall have full discretion in the
conduct of any proceeding or in the settlement of
any claim and the insured shall give all such
information and assistance as the Company may
require”.
The Plaintiff had incurred other miscellaneous expenses during the
course of the repair work. The Plaintiff had settled few claims and
deposited amounts without the consent of the Defendant. The
Defendant obtained legal opinion from its Panel Advocate Mr
Vineet Malhotra and who rendered his opinion on 12.07.2017. On
the basis of the said legal opinion received by Defendant, the
Defendant repudiated the claims of the Plaintiff by letter dated
17.10.2017.
On merits, Defendant denied that Mr Rajiv Kumar was the
authorized signatory of the Plaintiff. To the contents of Paras no. 2
to 8 of the Plaint, Defendant stated that these were matter of record
Digitally signed
RAVINDER by RAVINDER
BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:42:00 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 11/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
and needed no reply. To the contents of para no. 9, Defendant
admitted that Plaintiff had sent an e-mail dated 19.02.2015
informing about the damage caused to building situated at the back
side of property no. G-3/3 Model Town, Delhi. No estimation of
the loss was informed.
The Surveyor appointed by the Defendant was neither a legal
authority nor recommendation made by him was any admission on
part of Defendant or binding upon the Defendant. Rest of the
contents of Para no. 29 to 35 were also denied as false and
frivolous.
To the contents of para no. 10, 12, 13, 16 and 19 to 26 of the
Plaint, Defendant stated that these were matter of record and
needed no reply and Plaintiff should be put to strict proof for the
same. To the contents of paras no. 11, 14, 15, 17,18 and 27,
Defendant denied the same stating that these were false and
frivolous.
Similarly, Para no. 28 to 30 of the Plaint were denied as false and
frivolous and it was contended that as per clause-II of the CAR
Policy, Defendant was not liable to make any payment unless
admitted by Defendant or adjudicated by any authority having
legal sanction. Digitally signed
by RAVINDER
RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:42:06 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 12/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
It is observable that the written statement in fact contains flat and
simple denials to Plaint averments and the denials seem simplistic
without putting forth Defendant’s own version.
4. In the Replication, Plaintiff reiterated its version in the plaint
while refuting the contentions of Defendant.
By Order dated 26.08.2023, the following issues were
settled for adjudication :-
Issue no. 1: Whether the defendant rightly
repudiated the claim of the Plaintiff vide letter dated
17.10.2017? OPDIssue no. 2: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to
recover the amount of Rs.1,16,43,044/- from the
defendant ? OPPIssue no. 3: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any
interest on the suit amount, if so, at what rate and for
what period ? OPPIssue no. 4: Relief.
5. Plaintiff in order to prove its case examined Sh. Rajiv
Kumar as PW-1. PW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.
PW1/A and proved Power of Attornies dated 03.05.2018 in his favour
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:42:13 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 13/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
as Ex. PW1/1, Ex. PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3, Contract no. CC-04 as
Ex.PW1/9, Insurance Policy commencing from 09.01.2012 to
08.02.2018 as Ex.PW1/10, e-mail dated 19.02.2015 of Plaintiffs as
Ex.PW1/12, of e-mail dated 09.03.2015 of Defendant as Ex.PW1/13, e-
mail dated 24.03.2015 as Ex.PW1/14, e-mail dated 05.04.2015 as
Ex.PW1/15, e-mail dated 17.04.2017 as Ex.PW1/19, e-mail dated
18.04.2017 as Ex.PW1/20, e-mail dated 05.04.2016 as Ex.PW1/21, e-
mail dated 11.05.2016 Ex.PW1/22, e-mail dated 20.03.2017 as
Ex.PW1/23, Minutes of meeting dated 27.03.2017 as Ex.PW1/24,
Repudiation letter dated 17.10.2017 as Ex.PW1/25, Certificate under
Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as Ex.PW1/26.
Plaintiff also examined PW2 Sh. Chetan Kumar Jain,
General Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor who proved his Surveyor
Report (already Ex. PW1/18) and the Enclosures to the Survey Report
received by Plaintiff as Ex. PW2/A (colly) (from page no. 1 to 277 of
documents)
6 Defendant in order to prove its case examined Sh. Nawal
Singh as DW-1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as
Ex.DW1/A. DW-1 proved the xerox of Power of Attorney dated
12.09.2022 as Ex.DW1/1 (running from page no.7 to 11 on paper book),
Power of Attorney dated 11.02.2019 in favour of Ms. Mandakini Balodhi
as Ex.DW1/2 (at page no. 14 to 18 on paper book) and legal opinion of
Advocate Mr. Vineet Malhotra (running upto page no. 51 to 61 on paper
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:42:20 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 14/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
book) as Ex.DW1/3.
Submissions of Plaintiff
7 Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff argued that the CAR Policy issued
by Defendant expressly covered the third party liability with cross
liability cover and indemnity in respect of accident arising out of either a
single event or a series of events with total indemnity limit extending to
Rs.25,00,00,000/-. Ld. Counsel submits that the said Policy was extended
from time to time by Defendant with such an extension, duly effected on
09.11.2017 covering all risks and the premiums paid by Plaintiff are not
in dispute in continuation of the CAR Policy, as per GCC of the Contract.
Ld. Counsel submits that ignoring the Survey Report and on the basis of
mere opinion of lawyer Mr Vineet Malhotra, which was taken as an
afterthought, the Defendant repudiated the claims of Plaintiff in an illegal
manner.
8. Ld. Counsel argued that Defendant did not raise any
opposition to the claims based on Policy conditions throughout the period
between March 2015 and October 2017 and claims were still under
consideration, Ld. Counsel argued that Plaintiff was entitled to be
indemnified fully to the extent of the sum insured by the Defendant. Ld.
Counsel referred to barrage of communication in the form of e-mails and
Digitally signed
RAVINDER by RAVINDER
BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:42:31 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 15/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
letters, joint visits of Surveyor alongwith officials of DMRC and Plaintiff
on the site of repair works. He further referred to Letter of Plaintiff dated
05.04.2015 notifying the expenses, Letter of intimation dated 15.09.2015
sent to the Surveyor informing him of the complete details of the
expenses of Rs. 78,66,922/- incurred and Reminder dated 24.12.2015 to
Surveyor, Ld. Counsel argued that the Plaintiff did not get any response
from Defendant.
9. Ld. Counsel drew my attention to the testimony of DW-1
Nawal Singh and argued that in the absence of any authority letter, the
witness had no authority to depose on behalf of Defendant company. Ld.
Counsel further referred to the cross-examination of DW-1 to argue that
the witness acknowledged all e-mails received from Plaintiff and the
Minutes of Meeting dated 27.03.2017 and further admitted that there was
no single objection raised to the claims uptill 27.03.2017 by Defendant.
Ld. Counsel argued that the witness i.e. Advocate based upon whose
legal opinion dated 12.07.2017, the claim was rejected was not examined
by Defendant, which itself rendered the falsity of defence of Defendant
apparent.
10 Ld Counsel points to the Final Claim Form (FCF) submitted
to the Surveyor alongwith claim bills reflecting the actual costs by its
letter dated 24.12.2015 to argue that Defendant was kept informed at all
points of time, but did never object at any stage of the proceedings to
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:42:39 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 16/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
such claims. Ld. Counsel submits that Defendant failed to respond to the
letters and e-mails of Plaintiff and instead issued a Repudiation Letter
dated 17.10.2017 citing the reason that the claims lodged by Plaintiff fell
under Section II of the CAR Policy, which was clearly contrary to the
stipulations regarding third party liability with a cross liability cover.
11. Ld. Counsel submits that the Defendant took false and
baseless plea of some alleged settlement entered into by Plaintiff with
third party, to repudiate claims of Plaintiff in an illegal manner. Ld.
Counsel argues that the Defendant had acknowledged the damages
occurred to the buildings, appointed its Surveyor besides acknowledging
the Report of Surveyor. Ld. Counsel argues that the Defendant did not
dispute the Report of Surveyor and any deviation from conclusions of
Survey Report was uncalled for on part of Defendant. Ld. Counsel has
relied upon Sri Venkateshwara Syndicate v Oriental Insurance Company
Limited, (2009) 8 SCC 507 to argue that the Defendant could not have
arbitrarily rejected the findings of Survey Report. Ld. Counsel has further
relied upon New India Assurance Company Limited v Mudit Roadways,
(2024) 3 SCC 193, to argue that the Survey Report could not be departed
from by the Insurer. While relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex
Court in United India Insurance v M/s Hyundai Engineering & Construction
Co. Ltd & ors (DOD 16.05.2024) and IRDA guidelines, Ld. Counsel argued
that the Surveyor Report Ex. PW1/18 correctly and impartially assessed
the losses claimed under the Policy and thus had a statutory recognition.
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:42:45 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 17/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Submissions of Defendant
12. Ld. Counsel for Defendant argues that the Plaintiff was
issued the CAR policy in question for a period from 09.10.2012 to
08.02.2016 and the same was extended by the Defendant on receipt of
requisite premiums to an extended coverage uptill 03.02.2018. Ld.
Counsel has drawn my attention to the various conditions under the
Policy Contract to argue that the word ” Legal Liability” in Sec II of
CAR Policy was significant, which meant that the liability to indemnify
under Section II of the policy was legal in nature. Ld. Counsel submitted
that the liability would only become legal liability, once the same was
admitted by Defendant or adjudicated by any judicial forum/ authority or
an Arbitrator. Ld. Counsel emphasized that the third party liability in
terms of Section II (Condition No-02) of the Policy without such
admission or adjudication would not become legal liability and the
claims were repudiated.
13. Ld. Counsel further argued that in a Contract of Insurance,
there was a requirement of uberima fides i.e. good faith on the part of the
Plaintiff/Insured, but Plaintiff went ahead by settling with third parties
without written consent of Defendant with malafide intent. Ld. Counsel
argued that in the absence of prior written consent taken from Defendant
before payment to third person, Plaintiff’s claim could not be
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:43:07 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 18/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
entertainable, since the Defendant had no opportunity to verify the
genuineness of such claims and defend liability.
14 Ld. Counsel also referred to the Arbitral proceedings
between Plaintiff and DMRC in which Plaintiff had claimed payments
for the damages caused to buildings, being one of its claims in its SOC
filed before Ld. Arbitrator and thus Plaintiff was barred from seeking any
indemnification under the Policy i.e. to claim double compensation for
same incident from Defendant.
15. To the Survey Report, Ld. Counsel relied upon the decisions
of New India Assurance Company Ltd v Pradeep Kumar,
MANU/SC/1032/2009 and National Insurance Co. Ltd v Hareshwar
Enterprise P Ltd ; MANU/SC/0544/2021 and contended that the Survey
Report was not binding on the parties. Ld. Counsel further relied upon
the decisions of Export Credit Guarante Corporation of India v Garg
Sons International ; MANU/SC/0039/2013 ; United India Insurance Co.
Ltd v Harchand Rai Chandan Lal ; MANU/SC/0803/2004; Sikka Papers
Ltd v National Insurance Company Ltd ; MANU/SC/0907/2009 ; Watts
Electronics Private Ltd v M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd & ors
CC/280/2020 before National Commission Disputes Redressal ; Reliance
Life Insurance v Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod , MANU/SC/0593/2019,
Life Insurance Corporation of India v Manish Gupta,
MANU/SC/0599/2019 ; Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v Mahendra
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:43:15 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 19/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Construction , MANU/SC/0544/2021 ; Satwant Kaur Sandhu v New
India Assurance Co Ltd , MANU/SC/1164/2009 ; and contended that the
liability had to be determined on the basis of strict interpretation of the
terms of Contract.
Analysis and Evidence Appraisal
16. Order XVIII Rule 1 of CPC recognizes the general rule that
the Plaintiff in a suit must prove his case. The Latin maxim says : Ei
incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat i.e the burden of proof is on
him, who asserts and not on him who denies and the same is in
consonance with sections 101 to 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
17. As per Section-101 of The Indian Evidence Act, Plaintiff
must prove the existence of legal right in his favour and positively
establish its case on the basis of material available. Plaintiff cannot rely
upon the weakness or absence of defence to discharge this onus. Once the
Plaintiff discharges that onus and makes out a case, which entitles him to
a relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if
any, which would disentitle the Plaintiff to the same. It is also a settled
law that in case, evidence is not led by the party, an adverse inference
may be drawn, under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Digitally signed
RAVINDER by RAVINDER
BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:43:21 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 20/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
18 In the light of above-said position, I have heard final
submissions as addressed by ld. Counsel for parties and perused the
entire record meticulously. I have also gone into the written synopsis
coupled with judicial precedents relied and my issue-wise findings are
herein below :
Issue no. 1: Whether the defendant has rightly
repudiated the claim by the Plaintiff vide letter dated
17.10.2017? OPD
19. The onus of proving this issue was upon the Defendant.
It would be apposite to look into the defence of Defendant.
The Defendant’s objection to the claims of the Plaintiff was that the since
there was breach of condition no. 02 of Policy, the Repudiation Letter
was legally justifiable and also that the Survey Report of the Surveyor
was not binding upon the parties.
20. The Defendant examined the sole witness Mr Nawal Singh
as DW-1, who testified by way of an Affidavit and filed his Power of
Attorney as DW1/1 (in photocopy form) alongwith Legal opinion of
Advocate as Ex. DW1/3 (xerox). The relevant excerpt of DW-1 during
his examination recorded on 17.02.2025 and 29.03.2025 is as follows:
” I am working as Manager in the Legal Hub in NRO-1,
New Delhi, Asaf Ali Road, of the Defendant company. It
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:43:27 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 21/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
is correct that I have not filed the original POA of
Ex.DW-1/1 on record. It is also correct that I have not
filed any authorization / POA dated 15.07.2021 as
mentioned in Ex.DW-1/1 in favor of Mr. Premraj
Tripathi on record.
It is also correct that I have not filed any
authorization / POA dated 27.12.2016 as mentioned in
Ex.DW-1/1 in favor of Mr. Rahul Duggal on record.
Mr. Rahul Duggal, who exhibited Ex.DW-1/2 in
favour of Ms. Mandakini Balodhi was authorized by
General Manager, Head Office, and was empowered
further to execute POA. I have not knowledge as to
who authorized Mr. Rahul Duggal, who in turn was
empowers to further authorize Ms. Mandakini
Balodhi.
It is wrong to suggest that I am not authorized by any
proper document on record and does not have any
authority to depose on behalf o Defendant company. It
is wrong to suggest that in the absence of an
authorization having filed in favor of Mr. Premraj, as
per Ex.DW-1/1, who could have authorized me to
further depose, I am not authorized for deposition.
I have never dealt with the Plaintiff company. Vol. The
RAVINDER Digitally signed by
RAVINDER BEDIBEDI Date: 2025.06.04 17:43:33
+0530____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 22/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
legal Hub Department does not directly deal with the
client insured. I was assigned with this Court case by
my In-charge in the year 2022 and I am dealing with
the same. I am aware of the facts of the case as per
record received by us. ..”
21. To the question of whether the Plaintiff was informed by
any letter of any breach committed under the Policy conditions, prior to
Repudiation Letter, DW-1 denied of the same and deposed as :
” I have no document, letter or any e-mail
communication to show that prior to the repudiation
letter Ex.PW-1/25, Defendant had sent any letter to
Plaintiff in respect of alleged breach committed. It is
correct that Defendant did not answer the e-mails
Ex.PW-1/19 (uptil page no.293-299).
DW-1 is shown joint meetings and minutes of meeting
dated 27.03.2017 Ex.PW-1/24 (admitted document).
After going through the same, DW-1 has been shown
the contents of the Ex.PW-1/24 and especially para no.
301 Mark-A thereof, he admits that till that time, i.e.
uptil 27.03.2017, Defendant had not raised any
objection to the claims of the Plaintiff.
It is wrong to suggest that the legal opinion
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:43:39 +0530____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 23/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Ex.DW-1/3 dated 12.07.2017 has been obtained by the
Defendant as an after thought and is not binding on the
Plaintiff. It is wrong to suggest that Ex.DW-1/3 is
mere an advisory opinion and has no binding effect
upon Plaintiff and is only created just to take wrongful
benefit in the proceedings in favor of Plaintiff.
I am not aware of any survey report filed by any
independent Surveyor. I am also not aware of any
objections raised or forwarded on behalf of Defendant
company. ,..”
22. The testimony of DW-1 would reveal that he is not
conversant with the factual particulars. DW-1 also failed to prove his
authority or competence to depose on behalf of Defendant on the strength
of xerox of Ex. DW1/1. DW-1 did not bring any document showing him
to be authorized by Defendant for deposition and the xerox of POA
Ex. DW1/1 being not proved as per the provisions of The Evidence Act ;
the testimony of DW-1 has to be eschewed from consideration. Even
otherwise, DW-1 is neither privy to the Survey Report nor has any
personal knowledge of the process of investigation/Survey conducted by
Defendant.
23. The assessment of losses by the approved Survey Report is
a pre-requisite for payment of such claims. At the same time, the Survey
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:43:45 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 24/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Report has the statutory recognition and can be relied upon to decide the
claims. Though the Report is not the last word but may be the basis of
foundation for settlement of claims by the Insurer. It must be given
weightage unless there is sufficient reason to disregard it. Reference can
be drawn from the decisions of New India Assurance Company ltd v
Pradeep Kumar (2009) 7 SCC 787, Sri Venkateshwara Syndicate v
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2009) 8 SCC 507 and New India
Assurance Company Limited v Mudit Roadways.
24. Having carefully mulled over the Survey Report Ex.
PW1/18 which is duly proved by PW-2. I find that the same contains a
detailed and elaborative analysis of the incident and elements relating to
cause and extent of loss through physical site inspections, assessment of
quantum and other related factors. The testimony of Surveyor/ PW-2 Mr
Chetan Kumar Jain has remained uncontroverted. In his cross-
examination, PW-2 remained coherent while reiterating his version.
25 The Defendant chose not to examine the Surveyor or the
lawyer Mr Vineet Malhotra, based upon whose Report, the claims of
Plaintiff were repudiated. The Defendant while denying the Survey
Report did not come up with any evidence much less cogent one for
ignoring the conclusion of Survey Report and preferring some belated
opinion taken from lawyer to repudiate the claims.
Digitally signed
RAVINDER by RAVINDER
BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:43:51 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 25/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
26. Even otherwise, it is not the Defendant’s case that the
Survey conducted by the Surveyor was faulty and was rejected by
Defendant prior to taking some independent opinion from lawyer.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in decisions of National Insurance Company
Limited v. Hareshwar Enterprises Private Limited [(2021) SCC Online
SC 628] and National Insurance Company Limited v. Vedic Resorts and
Hotels Private Limited [2023 SCC OnLine SC 648] held that the
Surveyor Report is a credible and reliable evidence. Hon’ble Court has
further observed that independent experts’ report is on a theoretical basis,
while the Surveyor conducts onsite inspections and thus Surveyor Report
is more reliable. Since there is not a whisper of evidence having brought
on record to disregard the Report Ex. PW1/18 over any other document.
There is no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that Defendant failed to
discharge its burden that the repudiation of claims of Plaintiff were
justified under law.
Onus to prove Exclusionary Clauses or Breach
27. Whenever there is any plea of exclusionary clause or breach
of condition in the Policy Contract, it is for the Insurer to show that its
case falls within the purview of such clause or that breach happened on
account of Insured and and the said breach being fundamental, so as to
repudiate the claims.
Digitally signed
RAVINDER by RAVINDER
BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:43:57 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 26/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
28. The Hon’ble Constitution Bench in case of General
Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Chandumull Jain and Another AIR 1966 SC
1644 observed that : –
“11…….there is no difference between a contract
of insurance and any other contract except that in a
contract of insurance there is a requirement of
uberima fides i.e. good faith on the part of the
assured and the contract is likely to be construed
contra proferentem that is against the company in
case of ambiguity or doubt”.
29 In Texco Marketing P Ltd v TATA AIG General Insurance
Company Ltd (2023) 1 SCC 428, while dealing with an exclusionary
clause, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the burden of proving the
applicability of an exclusionary clause lies on the insurer.
30. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Ishar Das
Madan Lal [2007 (4) SCC 105] , it was held that evidence of Insurer
must clearly establish that the event sought to be excluded is included in
the exclusionary clauses.
31. In National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Vedic Resorts And
Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it was held that an exclusionary clause or a
breach cannot be interpreted so that it conflicts with the main intention of
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:44:03 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 27/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
the insurance. It is further observed that it is duty of the insurer to plead
and lead cogent evidence to establish the application of such a clause.
32. In case of any ambiguity, the Contract of insurance has to be
construed in favour of insured. Beneficial reference of the decision in
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Ishar Das Madan Lal (2007) 4
SCC 105 can be made in this regard, in which it is held that : –
“8. However, there may be an express clause
excluding the applicability of insurance cover.
Wherever such exclusionary clause is contained
in a policy, it would be for the insurer to show
that the case falls within the purview thereof. In a
case of ambiguity, it is trite, the contract of
insurance shall be construed in favour of the
insured. ”
33. In the matter of United India Insurance Company Limited
v. M/s. Hyundai Engineering and Construction Company Limited and
Others [Civil Appeal No. 1496 of 2023], decided on May 16, 2024 ,
Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the insurer has the burden of
proving applicability of exclusionary clauses in insurance contracts and
such clauses must be interpreted strictly against the insurer, as they may
completely exempt the insurer of its liability.
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:44:09 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 28/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
34. Coming to the Condition no. 02 of the Insurance Policy, the
same would read as :
” No admission, offer, promise, payment or
indemnity shall be made or given by or on behalf of
the insured without the written consent of the company
who shall be entitled, if they so desire to take over and
conduct in the name of the insured the defence or
settlement of any claim or to prosecute for their own
benefit in the name of the insured any claim for
indemnity or damage or otherwise and shall have full
discretion in the conduct of any proceeding or in the
settlement of any claim and the insured shall give all
such information and assistance as the Comp stance as
the Company may require.
35 The Condition only shows that full discretion is conferred
on the Defendant in the conduct of proceedings for settlement of any
claims. The words ” if it so desires to conduct” are important and the
Defendant is given a choice “if it so desires to conduct” the proceedings
in the name of Plaintiff. In the instant case however, Defendant failed to
establish any settlement allegedly entered into by Plaintiff without
consent of Defendant. Defendant has not brought anything supporting the
factum of any compromise entered into between Plaintiff and any third
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:44:15 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 29/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
party, which could have given rise to the occasion, leading to invoking
the Condition no. 02, as the breach of Policy.
36. In other words, Defendant failed to demonstrate as to how
there was breach of condition no. 02 by Plaintiff, which in turn was the
basis of the Repudiation Letter Ex. PW1/25. The case of the Defendant
primarily rested on the opinion of lawyer and the said opinion has not
been proved under law as per The Evidence Act. The Defendant failed to
putforth any ground for discarding the Survey Report Ex. PW1/18 and to
prefer the lawyer’s opinion over the Survey Report. The Defendant fully
acknowledged the damages occurred to the buildings in Model Town area
on account of excavation work of Plaintiff in pleadings. The Defendant
did not refute the conclusions of Survey Report and yet disregarded the
said Report for the reasons which remained inexplicable. The Defendant
utterly failed to prove the factum of settlements made by Plaintiff without
prior consent of Defendant so as to forfeit the claims of Plaintiff and the
Plea of breach thus remained unsubstantiated.
37. The preliminary assessment dated 24.03.2015 of the
Surveyor, pre-construction survey of the Surveyor and joint visits of
parties on various dates between June, 2015 and January, 2016 are not
denied by the Defendant. Similarly, the letters and e-mails of the Plaintiff
intimating the Defendant of incurred expenditure and completion of
repair works were acknowledged by Defendant. None of the mails or
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:44:21 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 30/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
letters was responded to by the Defendant nor the Survey Report was
conveyed to the Plaintiff. Since Defendant was in the exclusive
possession of the material evidence, but failed to bring up same in trial,
an adverse inference has to be drawn that had the Defendant brought
them on record, these would have contradicted its own version. In the
Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Shalu v Sandeep Soni (DOD
as 03.02.2016) , it was held that :
” 32. It is well settled that irrespective of the onus or
the burden of proof, a party in possession of the best
evidence, is bound to produce the same on record. In this
regard, we may advert to the pronouncement of the Privy
Council reported at AIR 1917 PC 6 T.S. Murugesam Pillai
v. Manickavasaka Pandara which reads as follows:
“A practice has grown up in Indian procedure of
those in possession of important documents or
information lying by, trusting to the abstract
doctrine of the onus of proof and failing
accordingly to furnish to the Courts the best
material for its decision. With regard to third
parties, this may be right enough: they have no
responsibility for the conduct of suit; but with
regard to the parties to the suit it is, in their
Lordships’ opinion, an inversion of sound
practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain
state of facts to withhold from the Court the
written evidence in their possession which would
throw light upon the proposition.”
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:44:27 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 31/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
38. This was further reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Gopal Krishna Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif, AIR 1968 SC 1413 ,
wherein it was held thus:
“Even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party the
Court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds
important documents in his possession which can
throw light on the facts at issue. It is not, in our
opinion, a sound practice for those desiring to rely
upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court
the best evidence which is in their possession which
could throw light upon the issues in controversy….”
Non-Adherence to IRDA Guidelines by Defendant
39 It would be apposite to reproduce the Regulations 9(2), (3),
(4), (5) and (6) of the IRDA (Protection of Policyholder’s Interests)
Regulations, 2002 (the IRDA Regulations), which read as under :
” 9. Claim procedure in respect of a general insurance
policy(2) Where the insured is unable to furnish all the
particulars required by the Surveyor Report or where the
Surveyor Report does not receive the full cooperation of
the insured, the insurer or the Surveyor Report as the
case may be, shall inform in writing the insured about the
delay that may result in the assessment of the claim. The
Surveyor Report shall be subjected to the code of conduct
Digitally signed
RAVINDER by RAVINDER
BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:44:32 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 32/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
laid down by the Authority while assessing the loss, and
shall communicate his findings to the insurer within 30
days of his appointment with a copy of the report being
furnished to the insured, if he so desires. Where, in
special circumstances of the case, either due to its special
and complicated nature, the Surveyor Report shall under
intimation to the insured, seek an extension from the
insurer for submission of his report. In no case shall a
Surveyor Report take more than six months from the date
of his appointment to furnish his report.
(3) If an insurer, on the receipt of a survey report, finds
that it is incomplete in any respect, he shall require the
Surveyor Report under intimation to the insured, to
furnish an additional report on certain specific issues as
may be required by the insurer. Such a request may be
made by the insurer within 15 days of the receipt of the
original survey report.
Provided that the facility of calling for an additional
report by the insurer shall not be resorted to more than
once in the case of a claim.
(4) The Surveyor Report on receipt of this communication
shall furnish an additional report within three weeks of
the date of receipt of communication from the insurer.
(5) On receipt of the survey report or the additional
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:44:41 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 33/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
survey report, as the case may be, an insurer shall within
a period of 30 days offer a settlement of the claim to the
insured. If the insurer, for any reasons to be recorded in
writing and communicated to the insured, decides to
reject a claim under the policy, it shall do so within a
period of 30 days from the receipt of the survey report or
the additional survey report, as the case may be.
(6) Upon acceptance of an offer of settlement as stated in
sub-regulation (5) by the insured, the payment of the
amount due shall be made within 7 days from the date of
acceptance of the offer by the insured. In the cases of
delay in the payment, the insurer shall be liable to pay
interest at a rate which is 2% above the bank rate
prevalent at the beginning of the financial year in which
the claim is reviewed by it ..”
40. As per Regulation 13(2) of the IRDA, Regulations 2015, a
Surveyor appointed by the Insurer has to submit his Report to the
Insurer as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 30 days of his
appointment alongwith copy of his Report giving his comments.
However, in the instant case, the Surveyor appointed by the Defendant on
09.03.2015 submitted his report after almost 365 days of being
appointed. The said delay remained inexplicable. As per the guidelines of
IRDA, Defendant had to take a decision on the claims within 30 days of
receipt of the Survey Report. The Defendant mandatorily had to either
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:44:47 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 34/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
offer a settlement of claims or give reasons for rejection of claims in
writing. Contrary to this, the Defendant gave its final decision on
17.10.2017 by way of a Repudiation Letter Ex. PW1/25.
41 It is not the case of Defendant that Surveyor had not
received documents from the Plaintiff, required for calculation of claims.
The record establishes the factum of the Surveyor having provided with
all relevant documents, which has not been contradicted. The regulations
passed by IRDA are binding upon all Insurers. The Defendant failed to
come up with any ground much less plausible one for the delay and
clearly violated the IRDA Regulations.
42 There is yet another aspect of the matter, which is that
written statement of the Defendant consisted of omnibus denials. The
same is not in accordance with the provisions of Order 8 Rule 3 A CPC
as amended by The CC Act, 2015 as per which ” where the Defendant
denies an allegation of fact in a plaint, he must state his reasons for doing
so and if he intends to put forward a different version of events from that
given by the Plaintiff, he must state his own version”. The written
statement of Defendant contained only simplistic and flat denials and
thus the averments of plaint are deemed to have been admitted by the
Defendant.
On account of the above said, the issue stands decided
against the Defendant and in favour of Plaintiff.
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:44:54 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 35/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Issue no. 2: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the
amount of Rs.1,16,43,044/- from the defendant ? OPP
Issue no. 3: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any interest
on the suit amount, if so, at what rate and for what period ?
OPP
43. The onus to prove these issues was upon the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff examined Sh. Rajeev Kumar as PW-1. PW-1
deposed on the line of averments taken in the plaint and proved the
Policy Ex. PW1/10 and barrage of mails sent to the Defendant running
from Ex. PW1/12 to Ex. PW1/15 and Ex. PW1/19 to Ex. PW1/23. PW-1
deposed that the Defendant was kept in knowledge of all stages of repair
works and by letter dated 15.09.2015 Ex. PW1/16, was informed of the
total expenditure of Rs. 78,66,922/- incurred by the Plaintiff on repair
works. Instead the claims of Plaintiff met with Repudiation Letter Ex.
PW1/25.
44. The record establishes that Plaintiff was not given any
intimation in respect of the assessment of his claims nor the Survey
Report was provided to Plaintiff within time. From the overwhelming
evidence brought on record, Plaintiff established the factum of the
repair/restoration works carried on at the sites, regarding which complete
Digitally signed
RAVINDER by RAVINDER
BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:45:00 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 36/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
information alongwith documents was conveyed to the Defendant.
Plaintiff also proved the claim amount of Rs. 78,66,922/- based upon the
documents and Survey Assessment. The testimony of PW-1 remained
uncontroverted and his cross-examination dated 22.05.2024 was confined
to questions, most of which had no relevancy to the subject matter.
45. The Sureveyor/PW-2 personally conducted the Survey by
having multiple visits at the sites and filed his Survey Report Ex.
PW1/18. As also observed in Issue no.1, the defendant miserably failed
to discharge its burden of proving the Breach under Condition 02 of the
Policy. The Defendant failed to come up with any cogent reason for
discarding the Survey Report. In such circumstances, I hold that Plaintiff
has been able to establish its claims against Defendant on preponderance
of probabilities and its entitlement for the same.
46. I also observe that the Defendant despite knowing that it had
no defense to the claims raised by Plaintiff, still continued to contest the
matter with an intent to delay the claims filed under the CC Act and
attempted to thwart the proceedings, which cannot be countenanced,
given the object and purport of The CC Act, 2015.
Interest
47 On the aspect of claiming an interest on the amount of
Digitally signed
RAVINDER by RAVINDER
BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:45:07 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 37/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Rs. 1,16,43,044/- (Rs. 78,66,922/- plus interest @18% p.a w.e.f from
October 2015) pendentelite and future, Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff has
prayed for an interest @ 18% p.a on the said amount till realization
stating that the Defendant had withheld the lawful claims in an illegal
manner for the relevant period, and Plaintiff is entitled for such an
interest for the said period.
48 Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as ‘M/s. Jindal
Realcon Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs M/s. Laxmi Narain Ram Dass & Co, (para-4)
has observed as follows :
“4. The Supreme Court in a line of judgments has held
that in view of changed economic scenario where there
has been consistent fall in rates of interest, Courts must in
accordance with the changed circumstances grant lesser
rates of interest. These judgments of the Supreme Court
are Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing &
Area Development Authority, (2005) 6 SCC 678,
McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.,
(2006) 11 SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700,
Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G. Harischandra,
(2007) 2 SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan v. Ferro Concrete
Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC)”
(emphasis supplied).
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:45:15 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 38/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
49. Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case
of R.F.A. No.823 of 2004 titled as Shri Sanjay Mittal Versus Sunil Jain
(decided on 07.12.2018) has held that higher rates of interest, which are
against public policy, can be struck down by the Courts.
50. Keeping in view the mandate of settled law and Section-34
CPC, the interest of justice would be served if Plaintiff be granted simple
rate of interest @ 10 % p.a on Rs. 1,16,43,044/- from the date of filing of
suit till its realization.
Thus, Plaintiff is hereby granted simple rate of interest @
10% p.a on Rs. 1,16,43,044/- pendente lite and future till its realization .
Both issues stand decided in favour of Plaintiff and against
the Defendant.
Relief
51. From the discussion as adumbrated herein-above, the suit of
the Plaintiff stands decreed against the Defendant and Plaintiff is entitled
for :
a) a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,16,43,044/- (Rupees One
Crore Sixteen Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Forty Four only ) alongwith
simple rate of interest @ 10 % p.a pendentelite and future till its
Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDIBEDI Date: 2025.06.04
17:45:22 +0530____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 39/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
realization.
b) The costs of the suit alongwith pleader’s fee is also
awarded in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant. The
Plaintiff’s lawyer’s fees is assessed as Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to
Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed
RAVINDER by RAVINDER
BEDI
BEDI Date: 2025.06.04
Announced in open Court 17:45:29 +0530
on 04.06.2025 (Ravinder Bedi)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-12
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi
____________________________________________________________________________
CS (COMM) No. 1191/2020 Page no. 40/ 40
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.