Back
B. V. NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Gopal Dikshit – Appellant
Versus
United India Insurance Company Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishes the factual basis for the claim regarding property damage and the context leading to the appeal. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 2. discusses the contrasting interpretations of the cause of damage by the appellant and respondent. (Para 11 , 20) |
| 3. clarifies the court’s finding regarding the nature of the damage caused—primarily flooding rather than seepage. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 4. final ruling emphasizing the remand for assessment of compensation. (Para 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. The present appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter the “Act”) arises out of the impugned order dated 07.12.2022 passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter “NCDRC”) in Consumer Case No. 2287 of 2017 whereby NCDRC dismissed the complaint filed by the Appellant.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The complainant who is the Appellant herein is the owner of the premises situated at 50, Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi, 110065 (hereinafter “Premises”). The Premises had a basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor. The entire building was insured with the opposite party who is the Respon
Insurance – In absence of any substantive grounds to question findings of first survey, belated reassessment conducted by Insurance Company is not proper.
1. Investigated and determined - Merely because recording of evidence is required, or some questions of fact and law arise which would need to be investigated and determined, cannot be a ground for s....
The court affirmed that damages due to inundation are covered under the insurance policy, and failure to provide policy terms invalidated the insurance company's repudiation.
Insurance – Collapse of building – Where policy in question is for reinstatement, Complainant is entitled for Reinstatement Value of similar building.
Insurance claims must prove the cause of loss without reliance on unsupported allegations.
Inundated - The rainfall measured 24 cm on a single day on 24th August, 2000. Many areas of these cities were inundated. As such, it is proved that cause of loss was inundation due continuous rain fa....
1) Surveyor’s Report dt. 20.12.2000 proved that Rice Mill roof was made of GI sheets, also proved that the loss was caused due to falling water from the joint of the roof. 2) Repudiation ltr. dt. 09.....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
