In Brief
Mahavir Road sought insurance compensation for road damage it attributed to abnormal rainfall and water logging in June–July 2007. The insurance policy covered material damage from most causes but excluded normal wear and tear and gradual deterioration from atmospheric conditions. The insurer's Surveyor found only surface damage with no flood evidence, and meteorological data showed normal rainfall during the alleged damage dates. Mahavir provided no expert evidence to counter these findings. The Supreme Court upheld the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's rejection, holding that without expert testimony establishing the damage was not normal wear and tear, the claim could not succeed given the objective evidence contradicting the alleged abnormal rainfall.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.