Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

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