GOPAL DIKSHITversusUNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

                 [2025] 7 S.C.R. 14 : 2025 INSC 731

                           Gopal Dikshit
                                 v.
               United India Insurance Company Ltd.
                      (Civil Appeal No. 6623 of 2025)
                               19 May 2025
       [B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.]


                          Issue for Consideration
       Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the
       National Commission dismissing complaint filed by appellant; and
       whether the cause of loss to the premises is due to the seepage
       water or the heavy rains in Delhi.

                                Headnotes†
       Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.23 – House holder insurance
       policy – Second survey report – Reliability – Premises of
       the appellant insured with respondent-insurance company –
       Due to heavy downpour in Delhi, his premises severely
       flooded, resulted in extensive damage to the basement and
       the belongings lying there – First survey carried out, which
       stated that cause of loss was heavy rain – However, the
       second survey carried out since the report of first survey
       was not satisfactory – Appellant also sought opinion of two
       structural engineers – Respondent repudiated the claim of
       the appellant on the ground that damage to the building was
       caused by continuous seepage of water from the basement,
       which was not listed as a named peril under the insurance
       policy, thus, the resulting loss or damage not indemnifiable –
       National Commission dismissed the appellant’s complaint –
       Correctness:
       Held: In view of the concurrent findings in the certificates and
       first survey report, the damage to the insured premises was not
       caused by any inherent structural defect or seepage, but was
       instead a direct consequence of unprecedented and heavy rainfall
       experienced during the relevant period, which led to flooding of
       water into the basement – First survey, conducted promptly, had
       already comprehensively assessed the cause and extent of the


* Author
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                               15

         Gopal Dikshit v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.


     damage – Nothing on record to suggest that first survey was
     deficient or incomplete in any manner – Despite conducting a
     survey before, respondent proceeded to commission a second
     survey without furnishing any reasonable, cogent, or valid grounds
     justifying the necessity for a reassessment – Second survey report
     deviated from the reasons of the first survey report and curiously
     recorded that the damage to the premises was caused by seepage,
     rather than by flooding due to heavy downpour – Second survey
     report failed to counter or address the detailed and comprehensive
     observations made in the first survey report nor did it offer any
     explanation or new material facts that would warrant a reversal
     of the initial conclusion – This abrupt departure from the earlier
     findings, without explanation or justification, raises serious concerns
     about the reliability and objectivity of the second survey – In the
     absence of any substantive grounds to question the findings of
     the first survey, belated reassessment conducted by respondent
     is deemed arbitrary and without due basis – No reason to accept
     the second survey report and it is set aside – Contrary findings
     of National Commission set aside – Matter remanded back to
     determine the appropriate quantum of compensation payable to
     the appellant. [Paras 29-31]

                               Case Law Cited
     Mahavir Road and Infrastructure Private Limited v. Iffco Tokio
     General Insurance Company Limited [2019] 5 SCR 890 : (2019) 5
     SCC 677 – distinguished.
     United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dipendu Ghosh & Anr., II (2009)
     CPJ 311 (NC) – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
     Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

                              List of Keywords
     Rejection of insurance claim; House holder insurance policy;
     Severe flood; Basement inundated with water; Survey report;
     Opinion of structural engineers; Seepage; Inherent structural defect;
     Direct consequence of unprecedented and heavy rainfall; Abrupt
     departure from findings of survey report; Arbitrary reassessment
     by insurance company; National Consumer Disputes Redressal
     Commission; Cause of loss to the premises due to seepage water
16                                                          [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


      or heavy rains in Delhi; Second survey report; Extensive damage
      to basement; First survey report; Continuous seepage of water
      from the basement; Insurance policy; Indemnifiable; Belated
      reassessment; Compensation.

                            Case Arising From
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6623 of 2025
      From the Judgment and Order dated 07.12.2022 of the National
      Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in CC
      No. 2287 of 2017

                         Appearances for Parties
      Advs. for the Appellant:
      Sukumar Pattjoshi, Sr. Adv., Siddhartha Chowdhury, Shaffi Mather,
      Rajesh Kumar.
      Advs. for the Respondent:
      Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. K Enatoli Sema, Ms. Chubalemla Chang,
      Prang Newmai.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

      Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

1.    The present appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection
      Act, 1986 (hereinafter the “Act”) arises out of the impugned order
      dated 07.12.2022 passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer
      Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter “NCDRC”)
      in Consumer Case No. 2287 of 2017 whereby NCDRC dismissed
      the complaint filed by the Appellant.

      FACTUAL MATRIX
2.    The complainant who is the Appellant herein is the owner of the
      premises situated at 50, Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi,
      110065 (hereinafter “Premises”). The Premises had a basement,
      ground floor, first floor and second floor. The entire building was
      insured with the opposite party who is the Respondent herein vide
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                         17

         Gopal Dikshit v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.


     House Holder Insurance Policy No. 2219042615P115431073 for
     Rs. 1.50 crores which was valid for the period from 13.03.2016 to
     12.03.2017.
3.   It is the case of the Appellant that due to a heavy downpour in
     New Delhi from 25.08.2016 to 31.08.2016, the Premises were
     severely flooded. During this period, the Appellant was out of Delhi
     from 24.08.2016 to 29.08.2016. Upon his return, he found that the
     basement of the Premises was inundated with water, resulting in
     extensive damage to the furniture, fittings, almirahs, books, and other
     belongings stored there. In an effort to prevent further deterioration,
     the Appellant installed a booster pump on 30.08.2016 to drain out
     the water from the basement. Despite this measure, the accumulated
     floodwater could not be completely drained out. Thereafter, the
     Surveyor, Mr. Akash Chopra, visited the Premises on 03.09.3016
     and inspected the basement.
4.   On 04.09.2016, the Appellant contacted Ms. Indu Singh by phone
     to inquire about the outcome of the survey conducted by Mr. Akash
     Chopra. Ms. Singh informed him that the report prepared by Mr.
     Chopra was not satisfactory and, therefore, she would assign another
     Surveyor to revisit the premises and reassess the damage. The
     Appellant also requested a copy of the preliminary survey report,
     but the Respondent did not provide it, avoiding the request without
     offering any explanation.
5.   Second Surveyor, Mr. R.K. Singla visited the Appellant’s Premises
     and conducted the survey again. In the meanwhile, the surveyor who
     visited the site on 03.09.2016, submitted its report on 06.09.2016
     which stated that the cause of loss was due to heavy rain in Delhi
     on 25.08.2016 and water entered from the flooring, resulting in
     damages to the insured building and contents.
6.   Additionally, on 07.09.2016 the Appellant sought the opinion of two
     structural engineers concerning the safety of the Premises. The
     opinion given by both of them indicated that the building was no
     longer fit for habitation and had become structurally unsafe and
     concluded that the Premises had to be vacated immediately and
     recommended that it be demolished and reconstructed.
7.   On 10.09.2016, the Complainant once again contacted Ms. Indu
     Singh to inquire about the status of the survey. She reiterated that
18                                                           [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


      the report was not satisfactory and requested the Appellant to visit
      her office on 12.09.2016 to clarify certain points. During this meeting,
      Ms. Indu Singh informed the Complainant that, due to the use of the
      term “seepage” in the survey reports, the insurance claim would not
      be admissible. Consequently, the final survey report was submitted
      on 18.10.2016.
8.    Subsequently, on 23.11.2016, the Appellant received a letter from
      the Respondent formally repudiating the claim. The rejection was
      based on the ground that the damage to the building was caused
      by continuous seepage of water from the basement, which was not
      listed as a named peril under the insurance policy, therefore, the
      resulting loss or damage was not indemnifiable.
9.    Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the dismissal of the Appellant’s
      claim, Consumer Case No. 2287 of 2017 was filed before NCDRC.
      However, the said complaint was dismissed by the NCDRC, which
      gives rise to the instant appeal.
10. Before delving into the merits of the case, we would like to consider
    the submissions made by the parties.

      SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that judgments of
    NCDRC have consistently held that “flood” means outpouring of water
    and on this analogy, it would include both inundation and seepage.
    Reliance was placed on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dipendu
    Ghosh & Anr. reported in II (2009) CPJ 311 (NC).
12. Moreover, it was submitted that NCDRC ought to have relied on the
    Meteorological Department Report stating that Delhi had rainfall during
    the period of 25.08.2016 to 31.08.2016. It was further submitted that it
    is a common practice in Delhi that on a particular day certain portions
    of Delhi received scanty rainfall whereas other pockets received
    heavy rainfall. In the case of the Appellant, the Ishwar Nagar area
    received heavy rainfall and as such there was flooding in the area.
13. Furthermore, the Appellant submitted that “seepage” refers to the
    slow and gradual flow of liquid from a source. In the present case,
    the basement had accumulated over 3 feet of water within a span
    of just three days while the Appellant was away from Delhi. The
    Appellant respectfully contended that such rapid and substantial
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                          19

         Gopal Dikshit v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.


     flooding cannot be classified as “seepage” as seepage does not
     result in the sudden inundation of a basement with three feet of water.
14. It was further submitted that in case there was seepage water in
    the basement, the same ought to have attracted the attention of
    the Appellant earlier and he ought to have taken adequate remedial
    measures to stop the seepage and not allowed the water to retain
    in the premises and get his belongings damaged.
15. Moreover, the first surveyor visited the site on 03.09.2016 while the
    2nd Surveyor visited the site only on 09.09.2016 i.e. 10 days after
    the reporting of the incident to the Respondent. It was respectfully
    submitted that no prudent person would allow the water to stay
    in the premises for 10 days and further facilitate in destroying his
    belongings kept in the basement. The NCDRC ought to have relied
    on the Survey Report dated 06.09.2016 rather than the Survey Report
    dated 18.10.2016. It may not be out of place to state that once the
    survey was conducted on 09.09.2016, there was no occasion to
    submit the report on 18.10.2016 i.e. more than one month after
    conducting the survey. The same smacks of mala fide intentions on
    the part of the Respondent.
16. It was further contended that in its Report dated 06.09.2016, the
    Surveyor specifically states that the cause of loss was: “Due to heavy
    rains in Delhi on 25.08.2016 the water entered from the flooring,
    resulted in damages to the insured’s building and contents.” It is
    submitted that the Survey Report dated 06.09.2016 was never taken
    into consideration by the Respondent and instead the Respondent
    opted to go for another survey which was conducted 10 days after
    the incident occurred.
17. Moreover, the report of the engineer only stated the condition of
    the building which had nothing to do with the seepage water in the
    basement. In this behalf it was submitted that the Certificates issued
    by M/s Unique Consulting Engineers dated 07.09.2016 states that:
           “Further, existing building was constructed having RCC
           frame. As time passes structure became old resulting
           corrosion in reinforcement due to water seepage in
           structural elements, i.e. reducing the strength of building.
           Hence, it is strongly recommended to dismantle existing
           building and reconstruct to meet present seismic
           parameters of the National Building Code of India; 2009.”
20                                                          [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


      The said report only states the structural condition of the building
      and further states that there is water seepage in structural elements
      (not basement) which includes the iron rods etc., which are inserted
      in the soil. The said report nowhere discusses anything about the
      condition of the basement of the building. In the respectful submission
      the NCDRC had wrongly relied on the said Report to reject the
      legitimate claim of the Appellant.
18. Further, it was submitted that Surveyors appointed by the Respondent
    had categorically stated in their reports that there was heavy rainfall
    on 25.08.2016. It was submitted that the basement of the Appellant
    was perfectly dry when he left on 24.08.2016 but after his return on
    29.08.2016 he found that the basement was flooded with water with
    water marks on the walls up to the window height.
19. It was submitted that it is not in dispute that the basement was flooded
    with water. The Respondent has denied the claim of the Appellant on
    the ground of seepage and appointed multiple surveyors, however,
    not once the Respondent has or their surveyors tried to trace the
    source of the water, nor appointed anybody to trace the source of
    water. The Respondent is completely silent about the source of
    water in the basement. The same is unfair practice on the part of
    the Respondent.

      SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE RESPONDENTS
20. Learned counsel for the Respondent vehemently argued that even if
    “seepage” encompasses both inundation and seepage, it is pertinent
    to note that each case is distinct and should be evaluated/assessed
    based on its individual set of circumstances and the specific terms
    laid out in the contract. Further, the case law cited by the Appellant
    in this context does not establish a universal interpretation applicable
    to all cases. It was submitted that the applicability of such precedents
    should be evaluated within the framework of the unique insurance
    policy under consideration. It was further submitted that the specific
    terms and conditions of the policy do not encompass seepage as
    a covered peril. Consequently, the rejection of the Appellant’s claim
    aligns with the policy’s provisions.
21. Further, it was contended that it is crucial to address the fact that the
    Appellant’s claim timeline, ranging from 25th to 31st August 2016, raises
    substantial questions regarding its reliability and consistency, leaving
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                            21

         Gopal Dikshit v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.


     room for doubt as to whether it was introduced as an afterthought to
     buttress its claim by the Appellant. It is submitted that upon thorough
     examination of the Meteorological Report dated 25th to 31st August,
     2016, submitted by the Appellant, it was observed by NCDRC that
     there is no mention of heavy rainfall on 25.08.2016. The relevant
     portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereinbelow for the
     sake of convenience:
           “17. The Complainant, however, in the Consumer
           Complaint, alleged that the loss was caused during the
           period from 25th to 31st August, 2016, which appears to
           be an afterthought. We have carefully gone through the
           Meteorological Report dated 25th to 31st August, 2016,
           filed by the Complainant. Nowhere in the report is it
           mentioned that there was heavy rains on 25th August, 2016.
           The Policy covered the risk due to flood and inundation,
           amongst others. Meteorological Report does not show that
           there was such heavy rain in the area leading to flooding.
           Admittedly, the loss was caused due to seepage. The
           certificate of International Consultants and Technocrats
           Pvt. Ltd. dated 06.09.2016 as well as certificate issued
           by Unique Consulting Engineers dated 07.09.2016 make
           it abundantly clear that there was continuous ingress of
           seepage water into the foundation and basement, which
           corroded the reinforcement steel, making it weaker to
           sustain loads, especially the lateral loads. As seepage of
           water was not named in the insured perils, the Opposite
           Party rightly repudiated the claim.”
     It was further submitted that while the insurance policy encompassed
     coverage for risks associated with flood and inundation, among
     other perils, the Meteorological Report did not provide substantial
     evidence to support the occurrence of significant rainfall in the specific
     area leading to flooding. It is pertinent to mention that the primary
     cause of the loss was attributed to seepage. This attribution is firmly
     supported by the certificates issued by both the structural engineers.
     Both certificates unequivocally confirm the existence of a continuous
     ingress of seepage water into the foundation and basement, which
     consequently resulted in the corrosion of the reinforcement steel.
     This corrosion, in turn, compromised the building’s structural integrity,
22                                                            [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


      particularly in its capacity to withstand loads, especially lateral ones.
      It is imperative to stress that the insurance policy did not explicitly
      include seepage of water among the insured perils. Consequently, the
      insurance company’s decision to repudiate the claim was a justifiable
      response, consistent with the policy’s terms and conditions and the
      distinct circumstances surrounding the loss.
22. Moreover, the Respondent considers it imperative to emphasize that
    the interpretation of “seepage” as a gradual process aligns with the
    prevailing circumstances in this case. The understanding of seepage,
    especially in the context of a basement or foundation, acknowledges
    its potential for a prolonged occurrence, as water gradually infiltrates
    and accumulates. It is submitted that seepage is not confined to
    insignificant or minimal quantities of water, but rather refers to the
    unauthorized infiltration of water into areas where it should not be,
    resulting in the progressive accumulation of water over time.
23. Furthermore, the certificates issued by International Consultants
    and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. on 06.09.2016 underlines the continuous
    ingress of seepage water into the foundation and basement. It was
    also contended that the certificate issued by Unique Consulting
    Engineers dated 07.09.2016 accentuates that the building was
    designed according to the Indian Standard codes of the period when
    it was constructed in 1986. However, with the revision of seismic
    parameters, the existing structure no longer meets the updated
    requirements. Furthermore, the structure has aged over time, resulting
    in corrosion of reinforcement due to water seepage, consequently
    reducing its strength. Therefore, these expert certificates affirm that
    the significant damage and structural deficiencies were primarily
    attributed to continuous seepage of water into the foundation and
    basement, turning seepage into a persistent issue rather than an
    abrupt or isolated event.
24. Moreover, regarding the escalation of the water level in the basement
    during the Appellant’s absence, it can still be reasonably attributed
    to seepage as it is conceivable that the water had been gradually
    infiltrating the area for an extended period, ultimately leading to a
    substantial accumulation. Hence, the NCDRC rightly dismissed the
    complaint of the Appellant after appreciating facts and circumstances
    of the case and the evidence on records.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                          23

           Gopal Dikshit v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.


25. It was further contended that both the Preliminary Report and the
    Final Survey Report unequivocally identified the cause of the loss as
    continuous seepage of water into the foundation and basement of
    the affected building. These reports provide a clear and consistent
    account of the circumstances leading to the damage. Furthermore, it
    was noteworthy that there was no mention of heavy rainfall causing
    significant damage in The Times of India editions dated 26.08.2016
    and 27.08.2016. The absence of any news reports documenting
    rainfall-related damage during the relevant period supports the
    conclusions drawn in the reports submitted by the insurance company.
26. Furthermore, in this case, the certificate issued by M/s International
    Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. played a pivotal role in assessing
    the cause of the loss. The certificate indicated that continuous seepage
    of water into the foundation and basement was the primary cause
    of the damage, rendering the building structurally unsound.

     DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
27. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the
    impugned judgment and materials on record. The point at issue for
    consideration is, whether, the cause of loss to the premises is due
    to the seepage water or the heavy rains in Delhi. In considering the
    arguments advanced by the Appellant, we are of the considered
    opinion that the impugned order passed by NCDRC is liable to be
    set aside. We shall now examine the various certificates issued by
    different authorities in relation to the said premises.
     (a)    Observations made in the First Survey Report Dated 06.09.2016 -
            On perusal of the first survey report dated 06.09.2016 conducted
            by Mr. Akash Chopra on 03.09.2016, it can be observed that
            cause of loss noted in the report is heavy rains in Delhi on
            25.08.2016, during which period, the water entered from the
            flooring and that resulted in damage to the Appellant’s premises.
            It was further noted that based on the inspection, the report
            confirmed that water was found coming from the flooring and
            had not come from the main entrance and/or any openings.
            The aforesaid survey report was clear about the cause of loss
            to the said Premises.
     (b)    Observations made in the certificate issued by M/s International
            Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. dated 07.09.2016 - On
24                                                            [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


            assessment of the amended certificate issued by them, which
            stated that the damage was due to the flooding of water into
            the basement which happened due to heavy rainfall, it can be
            comprehended that the damage to the premises was not due
            to seepage but was caused by flooding of water.
      (c)   Observations made in the certificate issued by Unique Consulting
            Engineers Dated 07.09.2016 - Upon a thorough review of the
            statement issued by them, it becomes evident that no causal link
            can be established between the subject matter of the certificate
            and the cause of damage that has occurred. The certificate in
            question specifically addresses water seepage affecting the
            structural elements of the building, noting a consequent reduction
            in the overall structural integrity. However, it makes no reference
            whatsoever to the basement area or any damage that may
            have occurred therein. Thus, the aforesaid certificate fails to
            substantiate any connection between the structural issues and
            the cause of damage in question in the premises. Therefore,
            we cannot take into consideration the aforesaid certificate and
            we concur with the submissions made by the learned counsel
            for the Appellant that the report nowhere discusses anything
            about the condition of the basement of the building.
      (d)   Observations made in the certificate issued by M/s Chordia
            Engineering Consultancy Services Dated 22.09.2016 - This
            certificate clearly notes that during the site visit conducted by
            the concerned representative, the basement of the insured
            premises was found to be flooded. This flooding was attributed
            to a heavy downpour that had occurred in the last week of
            August. As per the observations recorded, the ingress of water
            into the basement was a direct result of this excessive rainfall.
            Thus, the certificate establishes that the cause of damage was
            not due to any structural failure or seepage water but rather
            a consequence of the intense rainfall experienced during that
            period.
28. Upon a careful examination of the material on record, including the
    first survey report and certificates submitted by various technical
    experts, it is evident that the cause of damage to the insured premises
    was the flooding of water into the basement due to heavy rainfall
    in Delhi during the relevant period. The First Survey Report dated
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                        25

         Gopal Dikshit v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.


     06.09.2016 clearly attributes the damage to rainwater entering through
     the flooring following the downpour on 25.08.2016. Subsequently,
     the same cause is further corroborated by the certificates issued
     by M/s International Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. and M/s
     Chordia Engineering Consultancy Services, both of which confirm
     that the flooding, and not seepage or structural failure, was the
     proximate cause of loss. Conversely, the certificate issued by
     Unique Consulting Engineers pertains solely to seepage affecting
     the structural elements of the building and is silent on the condition
     of the basement or the cause of damage in question. As such, this
     report does not assist in determining the cause of damage to the
     basement and therefore, as a result of such limitation, it cannot be
     relied upon for the present purpose. Further, the learned counsel for
     the Respondent relied upon the judgment of this court in Mahavir
     Road and Infrastructure Private Limited v. Iffco Tokio General
     Insurance Company Limited (2019) 5 SCC 677. However, the set of
     facts of the relied upon judgment are different from the instant case.
     In the said case, the Surveyor recorded that there was no evidence
     of any damage on account of flood water and only surface damage
     was found. In the case at hand, from the evidence presented before
     us it can be concluded that the cause of damage to the premises is
     due to heavy rainfall accounting for flooding in the basement.
29. In view of the concurrent findings in the certificates and first survey
    report aforementioned, we conclude that the damage to the insured
    premises was not caused by any inherent structural defect or seepage,
    but was instead a direct consequence of the unprecedented and
    heavy rainfall experienced during the relevant period, which led to
    flooding of water into the basement.
30. Proceeding further, our attention is drawn to the final survey and
    assessment report dated 18.10.2016, which was prepared following
    a second survey conducted on the insured premises approximately
    ten days after the occurrence of the said incident. It is pertinent
    to note that the first survey, conducted promptly on 03.09.2016,
    had already comprehensively assessed the cause and extent of
    the damage, and there is nothing on record to suggest that it was
    deficient or incomplete in any manner. Despite conducting a survey
    before, the Respondent proceeded to commission a second survey
    without furnishing any reasonable, cogent, or valid grounds justifying
26                                                          [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


      the necessity for a reassessment. Subsequently, the second survey
      report dated 18.10.2016 deviated from the reasons of the first survey
      report and curiously recorded that the damage to the premises was
      caused by seepage, rather than by flooding due to heavy downpour.
      However, the second survey report failed to counter or address the
      detailed and comprehensive observations made in the first survey
      report dated 06.09.2016, nor did it offer any explanation or new
      material facts that would warrant a reversal of the initial conclusion.
      This abrupt departure from the earlier findings, without explanation
      or justification, raises serious concerns about the reliability and
      objectivity of the second survey. In the absence of any substantive
      grounds to question the findings of the first survey, we find that the
      belated reassessment conducted by the Respondent is deemed
      arbitrary and without due basis. In consequence thereof, we find no
      reason to accept the second survey report dated 18.10.2016 and
      the same is hereby set aside.
31. Accordingly, we set aside the contrary findings impugned before us
    and remand the matter back to the NCDRC for the limited purpose
    of determining the appropriate quantum of compensation payable to
    the Appellant in accordance with the policy terms and applicable law.
32. The civil appeal is accordingly disposed of.
33. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

      Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.



      †
          Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain