Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Insurance Law; Contract Law; Construction Contract Dispute

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed the appellant's preliminary objections and upheld the Consumer Complaint, directing the appellant to release and pay the insurance claim. The appellant contested the decision on grounds of policy violations and findings of the Expert Committee. The appeal addressed the jurisdiction of consumer protection laws, the validity of expert reports, and the burden of proof in insurance contracts.

1. Preliminary Objections Dismissed:

Rejection of Appellant's Preliminary Objection: The objection regarding the summary jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act and the limitation period for filing the complaint was rejected.

2. Merits of the Matter:

Inconclusive Committee of Experts Report: The NCDRC found the Committee of Experts' report inconclusive regarding the collapse of the bridge.

Reliance on Independent Expert Reports: The NCDRC relied on reports by Mr. Jacques Combault, the Halcrow Group, SETRA, and AECOM Asia Co. Ltd., concluding no defect in the bridge design and no fault of respondent nos. 1 and 2.

NHAI Decision: The NCDRC considered NHAI's decision permitting respondent nos. 1 and 2 to continue construction as indicative of their competence.

3. Addendum and Dispute Over Amount:

Increase in Claim Amount: An undated addendum increased the payment amount from Rs. 39,09,92,828/- to Rs. 151,59,94,542/- based on revised claim submissions.

Dispute Over Revised Amount: Respondent's counsel expressed inability to support the increased amount, asserting that respondent nos. 1 and 2 themselves limited their claim to the original amount.

4. Legal Analysis and Burden of Proof:

Nature of Insurance Contract: Insurance is a contract of indemnification, covering defined losses. Exclusion clauses are interpreted strictly against the insurer.

Burden of Proof on Insurer: The burden of proving the applicability of an exclusionary clause lies on the insurer, who must provide cogent evidence.

5. Evidence Considered:

Evidence Presented by Appellant: The appellant presented evidence, including the surveyor's report and the Committee of Experts' report, to justify repudiation of the claim.

Unrebutted Evidence: The surveyor's report remained unrebutted, and the court considered it credible evidence until more reliable evidence was presented.

6. Expert Reports and Site Inspection:

Reliance on Surveyor's Report: The surveyor's report, based on site inspection, provided detailed findings supporting the repudiation of the claim.

Lack of Credibility in Expert Reports: Reports by independent experts, not based on site inspection, were deemed theoretical and lacked credibility.

7. NHAI's Decision:

Limited Impact of NHAI's Decision: NHAI's decision to continue the contract with respondent nos. 1 and 2 did not override the applicability of the contract's exclusion clause.

8. Conclusion and Disposition:

Error in NCDRC's Judgment: The NCDRC erred in allowing the consumer complaint due to insufficient evidence and misinterpretation of exclusion clauses.

Allowance of Appeal: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order of the NCDRC was set aside.

Disposition of Pending Applications: Pending applications were to be disposed of accordingly.

No Order as to Costs: No costs were awarded in the matter.