Final Order 20

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL KHATRI, CIVIL
JUDGE-06/CENTRAL TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CSSCJ No. 543/2023
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .....Plaintiff
Versus
Arun Kumar Kaushik ....Defendant
ORDER
1. Present order is passed U/O XII Rule 6 CPC in view of
certain admissions in the Written Statement and statement of
defendant U/O X CPC.
2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of
Rs.1,73,562/- from the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that it
is an insurance company and the aforesaid amount was
inadvertently credited to the account of the defendant instead of
Surveyor Sh. Manish Batra. As per the plaintiff, the defendant as a
owner of Vehicle DL-11-ST-9433 has obtained the coverage vide
policy no 320100311200100004352 for the period 18.11.2020 till
17.11.2021 and during the tenure of the said policy a claim was
made by him. One of office of the Defendant Company situated at
Scope Minar Laxmi Nagar, Delhi had appointed Sh. Manish Batra
Surveyor to assess the said loss. The Surveyor Sh. Manish Batra has
assessed the loss and submitted his report. While processing the said
CS No.543/2023 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Arun Kaushik pg. no. 1/6
-- 1 of 6 --
claim the concerned official of the company was required to settle
the fee of the Surveyor. The said official inadvertently while
processing the fee of the surveyor relating to defendant’s claim has
entered Defendant’s bank details in their record instead of Sh.
Manish Batra as a result of which the fee which were payable to the
said surveyor on account of various works done by him started
getting credited into the defendant’s bank account. The said
transactions of money took place for aforesaid reason only. When
the plaintiff came to know about the aforesaid inadvertent credit of
amount in defendant’s account, it informed the defendant. However,
the defendant refused to repay the same.
3. WS was filed on behalf of the defendant wherein the
defendant has submitted that the suit of the plaintiff is based on
concocted and manipulated facts and the same has been filed just to
harass the defendant and extort money from him. The plaintiff
company issued the No Objection Certificate dated 03.09.2021 to
the defendant in loan agreement no. L2ADEL05463292. It it
pertinent to mention here that when the defendant applied for claim
of his accidental vehicle dated 27.08.2021 vide policy no.
320100311200100004352 valid from 18.11.2020 till 17.11.2021.
After filing of ST-Report by Mr. Manish Batra, Surveyor, the claim
amount of Rs.3800/- dated 28.09.2021 was received by the
defendant from the plaintiff. It is denied that the defendant is not
entitled to the amount which were being credited in his account. It is
submitted that the defendant has applied the claim for his above said
vehicle and the defendant received the claim of his accident vehicle.
CS No.543/2023 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Arun Kaushik pg. no. 2/6
-- 2 of 6 --
The another amount was not demanded by the defendant from the
plaintiff company or surveyor. It is denied that the total amount of
Rs.1,73,562/- has been deposited in the account of the defendant
and which amount the defendant is liable to refund the same to the
plaintiff. It is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed
with exemplary costs.
4. Arguments were heard on behalf of the both the parties.
Record perused.
5. Thereafter, the parties were called for their examination U/O
X CPC. During their examination U/O X CPC, the defendant gave
the following answers:
“Q. Whether you have received sum of
Rs.1,73,562/- in your account which did not belong to
you?
Ans. Yes, I have received the aforesaid amount in
my account and the said amount did not belong to me.
Q. Have you contacted you bank regarding the
aforesaid wrongful credit in your account?
Ans. Yes, I have visited the bank regarding the
aforesaid credit of amount in my account. However, I
have not filed any document regarding the same.
Q. Whether you have obtained insurance from the
plaintiff company at any point of time?
Ans. Yes, I have obtained the insurance of my
bike from the plaintiff company.”
6. It can be said from the aforesaid statement, the defendant has
admittedly his liability to the extent of Rs.1,73,562/- and stated that
he has received the said amount in his account. Moreover, he
admitted that the said amount do not belong to him. In these facts, it
CS No.543/2023 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Arun Kaushik pg. no. 3/6
-- 3 of 6 --
is relevant to mention the Order XII Rule 6 CPC wherein provide as
under:
“’Where admissions of fact have been made either in
the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in
writing, the court may at any stage of the suit, either
on the application of any party or of its own motion
and without waiting for the determination of any
other question between the parties, make such order
or give such judgment as it may think fit, having
regards to such admissions.”
7. The power U/O 12 Rule 6 CPC has been provided to
enable a party to obtain speedy judgment in case the opponent has
admitted the claim or liability and it is impossible for such opponent
to succeed in the case due to admission made. It is settled law that
admission envisaged by the aforesaid provision must be clear,
unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal. The admission may
be oral or written, it may in pleadings or documents filed by the
defendant.
8. It has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the
case titled as
'Delhi Jal Board Vs. Surendra P. Malik 104 (2003)
DLT 151 (DB)' that admission U/O 12 Rule 6 CPC in the pleadings
or otherwise, orally or in writing, must be clear and unequivocal,
unconditional and unambiguous. Further, admissions need not be
made specifically or expressly and could be constructive admission
as well. The object of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is to enable the party to
obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief relating
to the admissions of the defendant, to which the plaintiffs is entitled.
CS No.543/2023 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Arun Kaushik pg. no. 4/6
-- 4 of 6 --
9. Therefore, the admission may not be direct and it could
be constructive also, which is apparent from the pleadings or
documents filed on behalf of the defendant.
10. Applying the aforesaid legal proposition to the facts of
the present case, this court is of the view that plaintiffs have
successfully argued that they are entitled to judgment from the
court. In the view of the clear and unequivocal admission has been
made by the defendant that he has received the sum of Rs.1,73,562/-
from the plaintiff. Nothing more remains for adjudication in the suit.
It is not the case of the defendant that the said amount belongs to
him or the plaintiff is not entitled to the same. Hence, the defendant
has unjustly enriched himself at the instance of mistake committed
on the part of the plaintiff.
11. Section 72 of The Contract Act, 1872 provides as
follows:
“72. Liability of person to whom money is paid, or thing
delivered, by mistake or under coercion.—A person to
whom money has been paid, or anything delivered, by
mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it.
Illustrations
(a) A and B jointly owe 100 rupees to C, A alone pays the
amount to C, and B, not knowing this fact, pays 100
rupees over again to C. C is bound to repay the amount to
B.
(b) A railway company refuses to deliver up certain goods
to the consignee, except upon the payment of an illegal
charge for carriage. The consignee pays the sum charged
in order to obtain the goods. He is entitled to recover so
much of the charge as was illegally excessive.”
CS No.543/2023 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Arun Kaushik pg. no. 5/6
-- 5 of 6 --
12. In view of the aforesaid provision, there is no need for
taking the present matter for trial as far as recovery of Rs.1,73,562/-
is concerned. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff submits that he is not
claiming interest or legal expenses from the defendant.
Accordingly, the present suit is decreed U/O 12 Rule 6 CPC.
Relief
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present suit is
decreed in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,73,562/-. Due to
the peculiar facts of the case, no costs are awarded to the plaintiff.
14. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
15. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the court
on 19.02.2026.
(Sunil Khatri)
Civil Judge-06, Central District
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS No.543/2023 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Arun Kaushik pg. no. 6/6
-- 6 of 6 --