Saturday, 7 November 2026 कौन ज़िम्मेदार?
कौन ज़िम्मेदार?KaunZimmedar

Every story is a real government document.

Courts Supreme Court

Supreme Court upholds rejection of ₹2.4 crore fire insurance claim

The case concerns a dispute between an insurance company and a paper board manufacturer regarding the repudiation of a fire insurance claim of approximately Rs 2.4 crore, where the Supreme Court upheld the insurer's decision to reject the…

15 croreThe Court observed that the respondent changed its reported loss amount multiple times (from Rs 15 crore to Rs 7.31…

The case concerns a dispute between an insurance company and a paper board manufacturer regarding the repudiation of a fire insurance claim of approximately Rs 2.4 crore, where the Supreme Court upheld the insurer's decision to reject the claim due to suspicions of fraud and lack of evidence for an accidental fire.

Who it concerns: Appellant: M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd.; Respondent: M/s. Hemkund Duplex and Board Pvt. Ltd.; Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar.

What the court decided

  • The Supreme Court upheld the repudiation of the respondent's fire insurance claim by the appellant.
  • The Court found that the facts weighed heavily against the respondent, including inconsistencies in loss claims and lack of evidence for an accidental cause.
  • The Court noted that the preliminary surveyor and final surveyor identified manipulated books of accounts and doubtful circumstances surrounding the fire.
  • The Court stayed the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's (NCDRC) order directing payment, subject to the appellant depositing Rs 50,00,000 in a fixed deposit.

Also in the document

  • The Court observed that the respondent changed its reported loss amount multiple times (from Rs 15 crore to Rs 7.31 crore).
  • The Court noted that the fire brigade was informed one hour after the fire started, despite being only 6-7 kilometers away.
  • The Court highlighted that the tin shed had been destroyed by a JCB prior to the fire, and there was no electric connection in the yard to cause a short circuit.
  • The Court found that the respondent's loss minimization efforts were not bona fide, as employees were sprinkling water on the roof or ground rather than the fire.

How this was written

An AI model running on our own computer read the government document and wrote this summary. No person has checked it.

✓ Figures checked. Every number in this summary was found in the document by an automated check.

That check compares numbers only. It cannot confirm that the wording says what the document says — so the original document is always the authority.

How we work · Report an error in this story

The original document

Supreme Court of India — orders & judgments

Court order · 22 Sep 2026

Order 22 Sep 2026 · 0.5 MB Open the document On livelaw.in ↗
Read it here

Discussion

Discuss the documents, not people. No doxxing of private individuals. Do not state allegations of crime or wrongdoing as fact — ask questions instead. Be civil. Posts that break these rules may be removed by moderators.

Sign in with Google to post

No one has discussed this document yet.