LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus M/S HYUNDAI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 6 S.C.R. 355 · Decided: 16-05-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 355 : 2024 INSC 431
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 
v. 
M/s Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 1496 of 2023)
16 May 2024
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Aravind Kumar, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the correctness of the decision by the National 
Commission which directed the appellant-insurer to release and pay 
an insurance claim to the respondent-contractor for the collapse 
of the bridge.
Headnotes†
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Insurance Contract – 
Exclusion clause – Interpretation – Payment of insurance 
claim – Contract for design, construction and management 
of a bridge awarded to the respondent and another 
company – Issuance of contractor’s all risk insurance policy 
for the project by the appellant-insurer – However, during 
the construction, part of the bridge collapsed resulting in 
fatalities – Investigation report holding the respondents liable 
due to defects in the design, construction and supervision – 
Report submitted by Surveyor as also the Committee of 
Experts – Respondents made a insurance claim, however the 
appellant repudiated the same – Meanwhile the respondents 
completed the work under the contract and the bridge was 
put to public use – Almost after 2 years of the rejection of the 
claim, the respondents filed a consumer complaint alleging 
deficiency in the appellant’s service – National Commission 
allowed the same, directing the appellant to pay the insurance 
claim – Correctness:
Held: Insurance is a contract of indemnification, being a contract 
for a specific purpose, which is to cover defined losses – Courts 
have to read the insurance contract strictly – Essentially, the insurer 
cannot be asked to cover a loss that is not mentioned – Exclusion 
clauses in insurance contracts are interpreted strictly and against 
the insurer as they have the effect of completely exempting the 
insurer of its liabilities – Appellants-insurer discharged the burden – 
356
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
There was sufficient evidence to justify repudiation of the claim 
on the basis of the exclusion clause – Reliance on the findings 
of the Expert Committee justified – It was found from the Expert 
Committee’s report that combination of factors such as lack of 
stability and robustness in the structure, shortfall in design, lack 
of quality workmanship all contributed to the collapse – On the 
other hand, there was absolutely no evidence on behalf of the 
respondents – Surveyor was examined and his evidence remained 
unrebutted – Reports of independent experts relied on by the 
respondents were not based on site inspection but were theoretical 
in nature – Furthermore, continuation of work by respondents could 
be due to various reasons – Even if the NHAI’s decision to continue 
is taken to be a valid economic decision, that by itself cannot be 
a reason for not applying the applicable clause of the contract if 
such applicability is otherwise proved by cogent evidence – Thus, 
the NCDRC erred in allowing the consumer complaint – Impugned 
order passed by the NCDRC set aside. [Paras 16, 18, 20.3, 21, 
23, 26, 28-30]
Case Law Cited
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sony Cheriyan [1999] 
Supp. 1 SCR 622 : (1999) 6 SCC 451; United India 
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Levis Strauss (India) (P) Ltd. 
[2022] 10 SCR 231 : (2022) 6 SCC 1; New India 
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajeshwar Sharma [2018] 14 
SCR 1181 : (2019) 2 SCC 671; Canara Bank v. United 
India Insurance Co. Ltd. [2020] 7 SCR 498 : (2020) 3 
SCC 455; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Samayanallur 
Primary Agricultural Coop. Bank [1999] Supp. 4 SCR 
329 : (1999) 8 SCC 543; Texco Marketing P. Ltd. v. TATA 
AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. [2022] 9 SCR 
1031 : (2023) 1 SCC 428; National Insurance Company 
Ltd. v. Vedic Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. [2023] 7 SCR 
419 : (2023) SCC OnLine SC 648; National Insurance 
Co. Ltd. v. Ishar Das Madan Lal [2007] 2 SCR 1014 : 
(2007) 4 SCC 105; National Insurance Company Ltd. 
v. Hareshwar Enterprises (P) Ltd. [2021] 8 SCR 895 : 
(2021) SCC Online SC 628 – referred to.
List of Acts
Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Penal Code, 1860.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
357
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.  
M/s Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. & Ors.
List of Keywords
Consumer Complaint; Release and pay insurance claim; 
Contractor’s all risk insurance policy; Investigation report; Surveyor 
report; Committee of Experts report; Repudiat

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