LexGOPAL DIKSHIT versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 14 : 2025 INSC 731 Gopal Dikshit v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 6623 of 2025) 19 May 2025 [B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the National Commission dismissing complaint filed by appellant; and whether the cause of loss to the premises is due to the seepage water or the heavy rains in Delhi. Headnotes† 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 * Author [2025] 7 S.C.R. 15 Gopal Dikshit v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. 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] Case Law Cited Mahavir Road and Infrastructure Private Limited v. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited [2019] 5 SCR 890 : (2019) 5 SCC 677 – distinguished. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dipendu Ghosh & Anr., II (2009) CPJ 311 (NC) – referred to. List of Acts Consumer Protection Act, 1986. List of Keywords Rejection of insurance claim; House holder insurance policy; Severe flood; Basement inundated with water; Survey report; Opinion of structural engineers; Seepage; Inherent structural defect; Direct consequence of unprecedented and heavy rainfall; Abrupt departure from findings of survey report; Arbitrary reassessment by insurance company; National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission; Cause of loss to the premises due to seepage water 16 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports or heavy rains in Delhi; Second survey report; Extensive damage to basement; First survey report; Continuous seepage of water from the basement; Insurance policy; Indemnifiable; Belated reassessment; Compensation. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6623 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 07.12.2022 of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in CC No. 2287 of 2017 Appearances for Parties Adv
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.