In Brief
A road-construction company with material damage insurance claimed that monsoon rains had damaged newly laid roads. The insurer rejected the claim, citing an exclusion for normal wear and tear and atmospheric deterioration. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld the rejection, finding that the claimed rainfall dates showed only normal precipitation, the surveyor found only surface damage (not flood washout), and the company failed to present expert evidence that abnormal rain had caused the damage. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the company failed to prove the damage fell outside the 'normal wear and tear' exclusion; merely alleging abnormal rainfall without evidence was insufficient to overcome the policy exclusion."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.