https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783600 The dominant issue was whether the insurer could repudiate a fire-policy claim on the ground that a prior burglary/theft was the proximate cause of loss. The SC held that under a fire insurance contract, once it is established that goods were damaged by fire and the fire was not caused by the insured's wilful act, the cause triggering the fire is immaterial unless specifically excluded; burglary/theft preceding the fire was not an exclusion under the peril of "fire," and policy exclusions must be construed strictly, with the RSMD clause not displacing fire-cover exclusions. Consequently, repudiation of the claim and the adverse consumer forum decision were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the NCDRC for assessment of loss. en-us Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Dec 2025 15:33:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783600 The dominant issue was whether the insurer could repudiate a fire-policy claim on the ground that a prior burglary/theft was the proximate cause of loss. The SC held that under a fire insurance contract, once it is established that goods were damaged by fire and the fire was not caused by the insured's wilful act, the cause triggering the fire is immaterial unless specifically excluded; burglary/theft preceding the fire was not an exclusion under the peril of "fire," and policy exclusions must be construed strictly, with the RSMD clause not displacing fire-cover exclusions. Consequently, repudiation of the claim and the adverse consumer forum decision were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the NCDRC for assessment of loss. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783600