MAHAVIR ROAD AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD. versus IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD.

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 890 · Decided: 25-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
890
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  5 S.C.R.
MAHAVIR ROAD AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD.
v.
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 7315 of  2016)
MARCH 25, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
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
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 890
890
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
891
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]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7315
of 2016
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.02.2016 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Consumer
Complaint No. 58 of 2010
Anirudha Joshi, Abhishek Singh, Onkar Singh, Saurabh Mishra,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Abhishek Mishra, Rajat Khattry, Vivek Kishore, Advs. for the
Respondent.
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 policy was in the following terms:
“SECTION-1 MATERIAL DAMAGE
The Company hereby agrees with the insured (subject to the
exclusions and conditions contained herein or endorsed hereon)
1 “NCDRC”
MAHAVIR ROAD AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD. v. IFFCO TOKIO
GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
892
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  5 S.C.R.
that if, at any time during the period of insurance stated in the said
Schedule, or during any further period of extension thereof the
property (except packing materials of any kind) or any part thereof
described in the said Schedule be lost, damaged or destroyed by
any cause, other than those specifically excluded hereunder, in a
manner necessitating replacement or repair the Company will pay
or make good all such loss or damage upto an amount not
exceeding in respect of each of the items specified in the Schedule
the sum set opposite thereto and not exceeding in the whole the
total sum insured hereby.
The Company will also reimburse the insured for the cost of
clearance and removal of debris following upon any event giving
rise to an ad

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.