Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

Supreme Court Declares: Electrical Short-Circuit, Not Negligence, Culminates in Upholding Rs. 6.57 Crore Insurance Claim”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India, on November 24, 2023, upheld a consumer’s right to insurance claim in the much-contested case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Versus M/S. Mudit Roadways (Civil Appeal No. 339 of 2023). The apex court dismissed the appeal filed by New India Assurance, affirming the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s (NCDRC) directive to pay Rs. 6,57,55,155/- with interest for a fire insurance claim.

The bench, comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol, meticulously examined the multifaceted aspects of the case. At the core of the dispute was the cause of a devastating fire in a warehouse and whether it was covered under the insurance policy. The insurers challenged the claim, attributing the fire to negligence due to welding work during roof repairs, which they alleged was not covered under the policy.

However, in a decisive observation, the Court stated, “The significant time gap that exists between the welding work and the fire at 16:30 has no logical explanation. The basis of the repudiation accordingly appears to be un-reasonable and is not acceptable.” This critical observation shifted the narrative from negligence to an electrical short-circuit, as the more plausible cause of the fire.

The judgment also touched upon the valuation of the surveyor’s report in insurance claim disputes. The Court highlighted, “The surveyor’s report, although a prerequisite for claim settlement, is not absolute and may be challenged with other evidence.” This statement underlines the Supreme Court’s stance on the flexibility and non-absoluteness of surveyor’s reports in determining insurance claims.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of customs duty and the concept of unjust enrichment in the context of insurance claims. It was determined that the customs duty component of the claim would be paid directly to the Customs Department, eliminating any concerns of unjust enrichment.

Date of Decision: 24th November 2023

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. VS M/S. MUDIT ROADWAYS

Latest Legal News