Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.23 – House holder insurance policy – Second survey report – Reliability – Premises of the appellant insured with respondent-insurance company – Due to heavy downpour in Delhi, his premises severely flooded, resulted in extensive damage to the basement and the belongings lying there – First survey carried out, which stated that cause of loss was heavy rain – However, the second survey carried out since the report of first survey was not satisfactory – Appellant also sought opinion of two structural engineers – Respondent repudiated the claim of the appellant on the ground that damage to the building was caused by continuous seepage of water from the basement, which was not listed as a named peril under the insurance policy, thus, the resulting loss or damage not indemnifiable – National Commission dismissed the appellant’s complaint – Correctness:
Held: In view of the concurrent findings in the certificates and first survey report, the damage to the insured premises was not caused by any inherent structural defect or seepage, but was instead a direct consequence of unprecedented and heavy rainfall experienced during the relevant period, which led to flooding of water into the basement – First survey, conducted promptly, had already comprehensively assessed the cause and extent of the damage – Nothing on record to suggest that first survey was deficient or incomplete in any manner – Despite conducting a survey before, respondent proceeded to commission a second survey without furnishing any reasonable, cogent, or valid grounds justifying the necessity for a reassessment – Second survey report deviated from the reasons of the first survey report and curiously recorded that the damage to the premises was caused by seepage, rather than by flooding due to heavy downpour – Second survey report failed to counter or address the detailed and comprehensive observations made in the first survey report nor did it offer any explanation or new material facts that would warrant a reversal of the initial conclusion – This abrupt departure from the earlier findings, without explanation or justification, raises serious concerns about the reliability and objectivity of the second survey – In the absence of any substantive grounds to question the findings of the first survey, belated reassessment conducted by respondent is deemed arbitrary and without due basis – No reason to accept the second survey report and it is set aside – Contrary findings of National Commission set aside – Matter remanded back to determine the appropriate quantum of compensation payable to the appellant. [Paras 29-31]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.