Contractor Says Rains Damaged Road But SC Cites MeT Data That It Didn't Rain, Rejects His Insurance Claim

Meteorological data is beneficial for many sectors, including agriculture and aviation, but the Supreme Court used such data probably for the first time to reject a contractor's insurance claim for damage to roads by "heavy rains".

Mahavir Road and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd had undertaken a contract for resurfacing of roads in Nashik in 2007. Since the work was covered under an insurance policy, the contractor filed a claim for compensation with the insurance company for damage to the roads because of "heavy rains" between June 25 and July 5, 2007.

The contractor intimated the insurance company that "due to heavy rains on June 29, 2007, the roads were inundated and the top layer had been washed out".

bccl/representational image

The insurer rejected the claim on the ground that damage was caused due to defective workmanship and material and because of failure to provide an alternative route for traffic, which continued on the newly laid roads.

According to the surveyor employed by the insurer to examine the claim, "there was no evidence of any damage on account of flood water and only surface damage was found. The data of the meteorological department indicated minimal rains on the alleged dates of damage".

bccl/representational image

A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta noted that the contractor claimed there was abnormal rainfall and water logging between June 25 and July 5, 2007. Later, it claimed that heavy rains on June 29, 2007, inundated the roads and the top layer got washed away.

Referring to the meteorological data, as relied upon by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) while rejecting the claim, the SC bench said there was no rain at all on June 29 or even on June 30. Rainfall from June 25 to July 1 was nil or nominal.

bccl/representational image

Relying on the surveyor's report and the NCDRC findings, the bench said, "In order to establish that this was not a case involving normal wear and tear, the firm sought to rely upon what it described as abnormal rainfall and water logging.

The evidence on record (meteorological data) did not sustain the basis of such a claim. In this view of the matter and for the reasons we have indicated, we are unable to come to the conclusion that the order passed by NCDRC suffered from any error."