$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 103/2021 MAHAVIR PRASAD GUPTA & SONS .....Appellant Through: Mr. Debarshi Bhadra, Advocate.

versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Apoorv Sarvaria and Ms. Yashika Sarvaria, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R

% 03.02.2026

1. First Regular Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been filed against the Judgment dated 04.12.2019 whereby the learned District Judge has dismissed the Suit of the Plaintiff for recovery of Rs.20 lakhs along with interest @ 18% p.a.

2. The case of the Plaintiff/Appellant was that it has purchased the truck bearing No. HR 55Q 6002 for an amount of Rs.21,09,795.62/- on 31.05.2012, after taking a loan from HDFC Bank. The Plaintiff Company paid a premium of Rs.28,790/- towards the comprehensive Insurance Cover for which Defendant Company vide Cover Note bearing No. 295903. Thereafter, the insurance policy was issued on 08.06.2012 for the period effective from 28.05.2012 to 27.05.2013. The declared value of the truck was Rs.20 lakhs. Vide another document bearing Endorsement No. 215100/31/2013/1136/001, the Company mentioned the vehicle number, but no terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy were made available to Plaintiff.

3. On 09.07.2012, the driver Manish Kumar was driving the truck from Gokulpur to Jhajjar, Haryana. At about 1.30 AM, he stopped the truck to attend nature’s call on the crossing of Wazirabad Flyover, towards Burari side. While urinating, the driver saw a Mahindra Jeep stop in front of the truck of the Plaintiff and some unknown persons entered into the locked truck and drove it away. The driver raised an alarm to stop, but to no avail.

4. The FIR No. 0152/2012 under Section 379 IPC at P.S. Timarpur was registered, in the morning at 8.10 AM.

5. The matter was vigorously pursued by the Plaintiff, with the Police in the hope to recover the truck. However, an Untraced Report was filed by the Police, on 07.10.2013. The intimation of the Claim was given to the Defendant Company, by mail. Sh. Dewakar Sharma, was deputed for assessment of loss, who collected all the documents and assured an early settlement.

6. Despite a considerable period of time, neither the Defendant Company nor the Investigator supplied a copy of its Report; instead they started asking for illegal gratification from the Plaintiff for settlement of its claim. On 01.10.2014, the Plaintiff received a letter from the Defendant Company communicating that the Claim of the Plaintiff Company is not admissible due to some terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, and it was asked to explain and substantiate its Claim, in view of the grounds of repudiation.

7. The Plaintiff sent its Reply dated 08.10.2014 along with the statement of its driver, to the Insurance Company. The Plaintiff categorically denied that the keys of the truck, at the time of the incident, were in the ignition socket, or that there was any negligence on the part of the driver which facilitated the theft of the truck.

8. The Defendant Company took another year to decide the Claim of the Plaintiff, which was finally repudiated on false and frivolous grounds, vide Letter dated 31.10.2015.

9. The Plaintiff asserted in the Suit that the Defendant Company is guilty and negligent as it failed to settle the Claim for 03 years and erroneously rejected the Claim without any tenable grounds, especially when the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy were never communicated to the Plaintiff.

10. The Plaintiff thus, filed the Suit for Recovery of Rs.20 lakhs along with interest @ 18% p.a.

11. The Suit was contested by the Respondent/Defendant Insurance Company, which in its Written Statement, admitted that the vehicle was insured for the stated amount and an Insurance Policy was also issued, but it was denied that the contents of Policy were not communicated or that the Insurance Policy was issued without attachment of terms and