Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

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

Similar News