Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

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