Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 12 EX 461/25
SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.
LTD.
16.07.2025
Present: Ms. Surabhi Nautiyal, Ld. Counsel for DH (through VC)
DH in person.
Sh. SC Sharma, Ld. Counsel for JD.
The present order shall decide an application on behalf
of insurance company/JD u/s 151 CPC regarding maintainability of
the execution petition.
DH has filed the present execution for enforcement of
award dated 26.04.2019 of the insurance ombudsman in his favor.
Background facts are that complainant reported the theft
of his vehicle bearing no. HR-55-T-0197 which was under policy no.
360804/31/16/10002765 to the national insurance company ltd. But
his claim was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground
that his vehicle was traced by the police authorities and same was
lying under the custody of police station Tajganj, Agra, U.P. since
22.03.2017 and he may take possession of his vehicle and
accordingly, his claim was closed as
“no claim”.
It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the Insurance
Company/JD that the present execution is not maintainable as there is
neither decree/judgment passed by this hon’ble Court nor any decree
--Page 1 of 6--
-- 1 of 6 --
has been passed by any other judicial court. He furthers contends that
the insurance ombudsman has not stated anywhere in its award what
specific amount is required to be paid and left it to the insurance
company to assess and pay to the claimant admissible amount. As per
Ld. Counsel for JD the stolen vehicle in question was already
recovered by the police and this fact was intimated to the DH who
was advised to get possession of the vehicle which was lying in the
concerned police station as the same was in good condition but
despite several requests and letters DH failed to receive the
possession of the vehicle. He further submits that only registered
owner is entitled to get the possession and further it is duty of the
registered owner to shift it to the workshop and get it inspected and
thereafter submit repairs estimate to the company and upon receiving
the said report the surveyor of the company will assess the loss i.e.
whether it is partial or total and only after the said assessment
insurance company will proceed further to determine the loss that is
admissible.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for DH has argued that
JD is deliberately twisting the operative portion of the award of the
ombudsman and misinterpreting it to defeat the claim of the DH. He
submits that the above contention of counsel for the company has
already been rejected by the Ld. Ombudsman and cannot be re-
agitated before an executing court. He further submits that the award
clearly mentions that the complainant had submitted the documents to
--Page 2 of 6--
-- 2 of 6 --
the insurance company including the untraced report on 23.10.2017
and vehicle was recovered on 25.10.2018 and the reason for refusal to
take delivery of the vehicle after recovery is also mentioned in the
award i.e.
‘the complainant refused to take the delivery of the vehicle
since two years had passed from the date of the theft and vehicle was
lying in bad condition’.
I have heard both the parties and perused the record.
The operative portion of the award of the ombudsman
dated 26.04.2019 is extracted below:
“Taking into account facts and
circumstances of the case and the
submissions made by both the parties
during the course of hearing. I find that the
complainant had submitted the documents
to the Insurance Company including the
Untrace Report on 23.10.2017. The said
vehicle was recovered on 25.10.2018 and it
was informed to the complainant by the
Insurance Company to take the delivery of
the vehicle from the Police Station. The
complainant refused to take the delivery of
the vehicle since two years had been passed
from the date of theft and the vehicle was
--Page 3 of 6--
-- 3 of 6 --
lying in a very bad condition lying in the
open at the Police Station. As per FIR and
Untrace Report, theft of the vehicle is
substantiated and the Insurance Company
did not dispute the theft of the vehicle.
Hence, the claim is admissible under the
policy. There was deficiency in service on
the part of the Insurance Company. As per
PPHI guidelines ‘ “In case of delay beyond
stipulated 30 days the insurer shall be liable
to pay interest at a rate of @ 2% above the
bank rate from the date of receipt of last
necessary documents to the date of payment
of claim.
Accordingly, an Award is passed with the
directions to the Insurance Company to pay
the claim, as admissible along with the
penal interest @6% under PPHI Regulation,
2017 due to deficiency in service since
23.10.2017 till the date of actual payment.”
Further the opening page of award mentions amount of
the claim as well as the relief sought as Rs. 8 lakh. It is also not in
dispute that vehicle was insured for a sum of Rs. 8 lakh. The dispute
--Page 4 of 6--
-- 4 of 6 --
between the parties appears to be regarding interpretation of the term
“to pay the claim as admissible”. As per counsel for the DH, it would
mean the entire sum insured which is Rs. 8 lakh but as per the counsel
for the JD, it was required to be assessed by the surveyor of the
insurance company after the insured obtained the possession of the
vehicle from the concerned police station, shifted it to the repair
workshop and submitted the estimates for repairs which was not done
by the insured despite repeated requests so he is not entitled to any
amount at all.
I have carefully studied the contents of the Ombudsman
award dated 26.04.2019. A simple and plain reading of the contents
the said award leaves no room for any doubt and it does not appear to
be open to more than one interpretation. The term
“ as admissible”
cannot be read in isolation. The award directs the insurance company
“ to pay the claim, as admissible alongwith the penal interest @6%
under PPHI Regulation, 2017 due to deficiency in service since
23.10.2017 till the date of actual payment”. Clearly, the same was
passed taking into account the deficiency in service of the insurance
company. Ld. Counsel for the insured company has on the other hand
continued to argue that deficiency was on the part of the insured, an
argument which is evidently contrary to the contents of the award.
The award does not impose any obligation on the DH to get the
possession of the recovered vehicle, take it to the repair center, get
estimates of the repair, submit the same for inspection of the surveyor
--Page 5 of 6--
-- 5 of 6 --
etc. The Ld. Ombudsman had admitted the claim of insured without
any deduction or qualification.
In view of the above reasons the objections raised by the
JD to the present execution are rejected.
JD/Insurance company is directed to pay the sum of Rs.
8 lakh to the DH along with the penal interests @ 6 % till the date of
actual payment as recorded in the award.
The matter be listed for the above payment 25.07.2025.
(CHANDER MOHAN)
District Judge-14 (LAC)
Central, THC, Delhi/16.07.2025
--Page 6 of 6--
-- 6 of 6 --