https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771178 The SC determined that damage to insured premises resulted from flooding due to heavy rainfall, not seepage. The court relied on the first survey report and technical expert certificates confirming rainwater flooding as the proximate cause. The SC rejected the second survey report that attributed damage to seepage, finding it arbitrary and lacking justification for deviating from initial findings. The insurer's decision to commission a second survey without valid grounds was deemed unreasonable. The matter was remanded to NCDRC for quantum determination of compensation under policy terms. en-us Mon, 19 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 May 2025 08:21:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771178 The SC determined that damage to insured premises resulted from flooding due to heavy rainfall, not seepage. The court relied on the first survey report and technical expert certificates confirming rainwater flooding as the proximate cause. The SC rejected the second survey report that attributed damage to seepage, finding it arbitrary and lacking justification for deviating from initial findings. The insurer's decision to commission a second survey without valid grounds was deemed unreasonable. The matter was remanded to NCDRC for quantum determination of compensation under policy terms. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 19 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771178