Insurance – Difference of opinion of two Surveyors on cause of loss either seepage or heavy rains
The appellant had taken insurance for the entire building of basement, ground, first and second floors at Mathura Road, New Delhi for Rs.1.50 crores for 2016 to 2017. The premises were severely flooded during the period of 25th to 31st August 2016 and the entire basement was inundated with water resulting in extensive damage.
On 3.9.2016, the Surveyor inspected the basement.
On 4.9.2016, the appellant was informed that the surveyor’s report was not satisfactory, and another Surveyor would visit the premises to re-assess the damage. Inspite of request, the copy of the preliminary report of first surveyor was not given.
Second Surveyor conducted the survey. In the meanwhile, the first Surveyor submitted a report on 6.9.2016 that the heavy rain was the cause of loss.
On 7.9.2016, the appellant sought the opinion of two structural Engineers who had given opinion that the building was not fit habitation and recommended its demolition.
On 12.9.2016, the appellant was informed that due to the use of term “seepage” in the survey reports, the claim is not admissible. Consequently, the final survey report was given on 18.10.2016.
On 23.11.2016, the formal letter of repudiating the claim was given. The NCDRC dismissed the consumer complaint.
HELD that the first surveyor report confirmed that water was found coming from the flooring and not from the main entrance or any report. The said report was clear about the cause of heavy rains for the loss.
The same cause is further corroborated by the certificates issued by M/s. International Consultants & M/s. Chordia Engineering that flooding and not the seepage or the structural failure was the proximate cause of loss. Moreover, the report of Unique Consulting Engineers does not assist in determining the cause of damage to the basement.
Second Survey was conducted after ten days of the incident without furnishing any reasonable, cogent or valid grounds that the earlier survey report was deficient or incomplete in any manner.
Second survey report dated 18.10.2016 deviated from the reasons of the first survey report and curiously recorded that the damage was caused by seepage rather than flooding. However, the second report did not give any explanation or new material facts for reversal of the initial conclusion.
The abrupt departure from earlier findings, without explanation or justification, raises concerns about the reliability and objectivity of the second survey report. In the absence of any substantive grounds to question the findings of the first survey, we find that the belated reassessment conducted by the Respondent is deemed arbitrary and without any basis.
Press Release dated May 8, 2025 | Supreme Court of India | India
Judgment dated 19.5.2025 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6623 of 2025 of Gopal Dikshit Vs. United India Insurance Company ltd.
