In Brief
A homeowner in Delhi filed an insurance claim after heavy rainfall flooded his basement in August 2016, causing damage to contents and the building structure. The insurer initially conducted a survey attributing the loss to heavy rainfall and flooding, but later commissioned a second survey ten days after the incident, changing the cause to seepage (an uninsured peril). The Supreme Court held that the belated second survey was arbitrary as it contradicted the detailed first survey without justification or new evidence. Setting aside the second survey, the Court remanded the matter to determine the appropriate compensation based on the policy terms and the established cause of loss—flooding from rainfall, not seepage.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.