Mahavir Road and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

25 March 2019

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 7315 of 2016

Result

Dismissed

Bench

D.Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta

Citation

[2019] 5 S.C.R. 890 : 2019 INSC 394

Headnote

Consumer Protection:

Deficiency in service – Insurance policy – Taken by appellant who was undertaking resurfacing, metalling and asphalting of roads – Insurance cover encompassed ‘material damage’ – The policy excluded damage due to normal wear and tear or gradual deterioration as a result of atmospheric conditions – Insurance claim on the ground that between 25.06.2007 and 5.7.2007 there was loss and damage to the roads due to “abnormal rainfall and water logging” – Claim denied – Complaint before National Consumer Commission alleging deficiency in service – Complaint was rejected – On appeal, held: The evidence on record does not sustain the basis of the claim – National Consumer Commission was right in rejecting the claim.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: The basis of the claim which was submitted by the appellant was that there was abnormal rainfall and water logging between 25 June 2007 and 5 July 2007. Subsequently, in its letter dated 14 September 2007, the appellant claimed that it was due to heavy rains on 29 June 2007 that the roads were inundated and the top layer had been washed out. As per the report of the Surveyor, there was only surface damage and no evidence of the road having been washed out as a result of excessive monsoon rain or inundation. That apart, it is also noted from the findings of the National Consumer Commission, the dates on which the alleged damage is stated to have occurred, had not witnessed excessive rainfall and the rain was within normal parameters. The failure of the appellant to examine any expert in regard to the cause of the damage is a significant omission which has been correctly relied upon by the National Consumer Commission. The insurance policy specifically excluded normal wear and tear. In order to establish that this was not a case involving normal wear and tear, the appellant sought to rely upon what it described as abnormal rainfall and water logging. The evidence on the record did not sustain the basis of such a claim. Therefore, the order passed by the National Consumer Commission does not suffer from any error. [Paras 12, 16, 17 and 18][984-G-H; 985-F-H; 986-A-B]

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. Delay condoned. 2. Admit. 3. This appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 23 February 2016 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1. The NCDRC rejected the complaint of the appellant alleging a deficiency of service in the rejection of a claim under an insurance policy. 4. The appellant was undertaking the resurfacing, metalling and asphalting of roads in Nashik. An insurance policy was obtained by the appellant. The insurance cover encompassed ‘material damage’. Section 1 of the insurance

View Subscription Plans →