Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 303

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
A.P. Sahi, President, Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
Maa Danteswari Cold Storage – Appellant
Versus
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Respondent
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 171 OF 2011

Advocates:
For the Complainants: Piyush Goel, Himank Kumar, Dev Bhardwaj
For the Insurance Company: Suman Bagga
For the UCO Bank: S.K. Patri, Vishwanath Pratap Singh

Insured under named perils policy must prove loss caused by specific covered risk like inundation; heavy rain alone, without flood evidence, does not qualify despite supporting reports.

Headnote:(A) Insurance Law - Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy - Clause VI - Coverage for Storm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane, Tornado, Flood and Inundation - Collapse of cold storage building attributed to heavy rainfall - Claim repudiated for lack of evidence establishing covered peril - Rainfall noted in joint inspection and police reports, but no proof of inundation or flood causing collapse - Policy is named perils policy requiring insured to prove exact cause falls within covered risks - Heavy rain and wind alone insufficient without evidence of inundation; downloaded weather data showing minimal winds does not substantiate - Repudiation upheld as complainant failed to provide supporting documents despite opportunities, including pre-repudiation notice. (Paras throughout order)

(B) Consumer Protection - Deficiency in Service - Insurance claim repudiation - No deficiency where insured fails to substantiate cause of loss under policy terms despite surveyor requests and joint inspections noting absence of cyclonic storm and need for proof - Layman argument rejected as claim form signed without mentioning cause. (Entire order)

Facts of the case:
Complainants operated cold storage under Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy (30.11.2009 to 29.11.2010). On 19.06.2010, building roof collapsed, damaging plant, machinery, and stocks. Claim intimated as 'building collapse' without specifying cause. Surveyor appointed; joint reports noted some rainfall but no storm, requested proof. Police report mentioned heavy rain and wind. No meteorological or inundation evidence filed. Insurer issued pre-repudiation notice seeking documents; reply invoked 'Act of God' without specifics. Claim repudiated on 19.06.2012 for non-covered peril and lack of evidence.

Findings of Court:
Surveyor's detailed assessment quantified loss at Rs.47,24,483 after adjustments, but claim inadmissible as peril not established. No evidence of inundation despite rainfall claims; collapse not linked to policy-covered risks.

Issues: Whether heavy rainfall constituted 'inundation' under policy; sufficiency of police report, joint inspections, and Google weather data to prove covered peril; validity of repudiation for evidentiary failure.

Ratio Decidendi: Insured must prove loss directly caused by named peril like inundation; mere rainfall or wind insufficient without substantiation of flooding or policy-covered event. Absence of material despite surveyor demands and notices justifies repudiation; appellate scrutiny upholds where no perversity in insurer's appreciation of record.

Result: Complaint dismissed.

Table of Content
1. case parties and procedural history (Para 1 , 2)
2. complainants' initial submissions on policy coverage (Para 3)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTCE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER For the Complainants Mr. Piyush Goel, Advocate Mr. Himank Kumar, Advocate Mr. Dev Bhardwaj, Advocate For the Insurance Company Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate For the UCO Bank Mr. S.K. Patri, Advocate Mr. Vishwanath Pratap Singh, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 30.03.2026 ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Piyush Goel, learned counsel for the complainants and Advocate Suman Bagga for the Opposite Party No.1 — Insurance Company as well as Mr. Patri, for the UCO Bank. Mr. Goel had advanced his submissions on 24th July, 2025 that has been recorded as follows: - "Heard Mr. Piyush Goel, learned counsel for the complainants, and Ms.

Suman Bagga, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1/Insurance Company.

The complainant no. I before us is a cold storage, and through its partners/complainants no. 2 and 3, has come up questioning the repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company for the loss suffered by the complainants contending that the loss was due to a heavy rainfall which stood covered under the perils detailed in the policy.

The background is that a cold storage was constructed in the year

2008, and for the period in question, there was a Standard Fire and Perils Policy coverage for the duration 30.11.2009 to 29.11.2010. The incident causing the loss took place on 19.06.2010 which is within the said covered period. According to the complainants, the Intimation was dispatched to the Insurance Company about the loss and a preliminary surveyor was appointed and al preliminary joint inspection was carried out, report whereof is dated 10.07.2010 filed as Annexure A-5 to the complaint. Learned counsel submits that the collapse of the building has been categorically noted in the said inspection report, where-after a final survey took place and M/s P.K. Chakraborti & Associates carried out the survey and tendered their report dated 08.03.2011, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-3 to the reply of the Insurance Company.

It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainants that in Clause-12 under the heading of "Survey and Inspection" the surveyor has mentioned that "As informed there was some rainfall on the date of the event but no cyclonic storm during the rain ".

Learned counsel submits that the fact of rainfall therefore has been noted by the insurer in the survey report, yet the claim has been repudiated on 19.06.2012 on the ground that the peril as alleged is not covered and there was no evidence of any peril so as to indemnify the loss. The letter of repudiation dated 19.06.2012 has been filed as Annexure-7 by the Insurance Company in Its reply.

Learned counsel submits that this fact of rainfall is also corroborated by the Police report that also confirms the loss having been caused due to the rainfall. It is also stated that an employee had also suffered injuries and workers managed to escape from the cold storage. The contention therefore is that such a peril would amount to an "Inundation" as provided under Clause-(VI) of the terms and conditions of the policy and consequently the repudiation is erroneous.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has however pointed out that no evidence was led to that effect so as to construe the loss having been caused due to any heavy rainfall and it is pointed out that neither the claim form that has been filed as Annexure A-9 to the complaint nor the subsequent communication dated 12.05.2011 by the complainants anywhere refers to the cause of loss having been caused by a heavy rainfall. It is therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that in the absence of any such evidence or the alleged rainfall being covered as a peril under the policy, the repudiation letter does not suffer from any infirmity and consequently there is no deficiency in service, hence the complaint c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 303

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONA.P. Sahi, President, Bharatkumar Pandya, MemberMaa Danteswari Cold Storage – AppellantVersusReliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. – RespondentCONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 171 OF 2011

Insured under named perils policy must prove loss caused by specific covered risk like inundation; heavy rain alone, without flood evidence, does not qualify despite supporting reports.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
A.P. Sahi, President, Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
Maa Danteswari Cold Storage – Appellant
Versus
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Respondent
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 171 OF 2011