Worldfa Exports vs New India Assurance - Insurance Claim Dispute

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Facts | Issues |
| Petitioner's Arguments | Respondent's Arguments |
| Analysis of the law | Precedent Analysis |
| Court's Reasoning | Conclusion |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 7, Cited by 0 ] ### Delhi High Court

M/S Worldfa Exports Pvt Ltd vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors on 19 March, 2026

Author: Subramonium Prasad

Bench: Subramonium Prasad

• IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                            Date of decision: 19th MARCH, 2026
                          IN THE MATTER OF:
                    +     CS(COMM) 269/2019, I.A. 7461/2019
                          M/S WORLDFA EXPORTS PVT LTD.                       .....Plaintiff
                                              Through:     Mr. Shashank Garg, Sr. Adv. with
                                                           Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Ms. Ritika
                                                           Jhurani, Mr. Abhishek Kandwal, Mr.
                                                           Prithvi, Ms. Nistha Jain, Ms.
                                                           Aaradhya Chaturvedi, Ms. Gauri
                                                           Bansal, Advs.
                                              versus
  
                          NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD & ORS.                 .....Defendants
  
                                              Through:     Mr. Prem Kishore Seth, Ms. Alana
                                                           Mohammed, Advocates.
                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
                                              JUDGMENT 1.    Aggrieved by the letter dated 18.07.2018, issued by the Defendant
                    No.1, repudiating the claim of the Plaintiff under a Standard Fire and
                    Special Perils Policy, the Plaintiff has approached this Court by filing the
                    present Suit seeking the following reliefs:
  

"a. Issue appropriate order/direction allowing the Instant
Plaint;

b. Declare that the impugned letter/order of repudiation
dated 18.07.2018 is illegal and void ab initio and the same
be quashed and set aside.

c. Issue a money Decree directing the Defendant no.1 to pay
to Plaintiff a sum of Rs. 4,69,99,729/- along with pre

litigation interest amounting to Rs 1,51,12,022/- @18% p.a.
on entire duration of delay in assessing the Plaintiffs claim
till the filing of the suit and additional interest pendent lite
and further interest till the date of actual payment.

d. Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit,
just and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the present case."
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case, as discernible from
the material on record, are as under:

a. The Plaintiff took a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy
bearing No.31200011160100000432 (hereinafter referred to as
„the Policy‟), from the Defendant No.1, wherein the sum
insured was Rs.6,60,00,000/-. It is stated that the Policy was
effective from 01.03.2017 to 28.02.2018.
b. It is the case of the Plaintiff that on the intervening night of
29/30.04.2017 a massive fire broke out at the Plaintiff's
premises located at Plot No.384, HSIIDC, EPIP, Kundli,
Sonipat, Haryana, causing considerable loss to the building,
machinery and stocks. According to the Plaintiff, the loss
caused by fire was insured under the Policy.
c. It is stated that the Plaintiff informed the Defendant No.1 about
the incident and the loss caused by it. It is stated that on
01.05.2017 the Defendant No.1 appointed Defendant No.2 -
M/s Atul Kapoor and Company, as a Surveyor to assess the
loss.

d. It is stated that the Defendant No.2 visited the premises of the
Plaintiff for the first time on 02.05.2017.

e. It is stated that while the survey was well underway, the
Defendant No.1 appointed M/s Truth Labs, a private Forensic
Investigator, to determine the cause of fire.

f. It is stated that M/s Truth Labs visited the premises of the
Plaintiff on 16.05.2017 to collect the samples.

g. In the meantime, the Defendant No.2/Surveyor conducted its
survey by seeking information/details from the Plaintiff about
the loss suffered by it.

h. Material on record further indicates that Reports were received
by the Defendant No.2/Surveyor regarding the structural status
of the building after the incident. It is stated that Defendant
No.2 informed the Plaintiff that the building may not require
demolition. The Defendant No.2 also directed the Plaintiff to
get an additional Report from a Government recognized agency
and the same was obtained by the Plaintiff from Delhi College
of Engineering which opined that the entire building be
demolished and reconstructed for safety.

i. It is stated that M/s Truth Labs submitted its Forensic Report to
the Defendant No.1 on 20.10.2017 and the said Report was
shared with the Surveyor without a copy of the same being
provided to the Plaintiff. It is stated that since the Forensic
Report was not shared with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff filed an
RTI Application seeking copies of the Survey Report and the
Forensic Report.

j. It is stated that the Surveyor also collected material from the
Plaintiff.

k. It is stated that on 17.04.2018 the Plaintiff submitted its final
bill and claimed Rs.10,35,48,376/- from the Defendant No.1.
l. It is stated that on 25.05.2018 Defendant No.2 issued its final
Survey Report assessing the total loss of the Plaintiff, including
the stocks, stainless steel items, textile items, building, etc., at
Rs.4,69,99,729/-.

m. It is pertinent to mention here that Defendant No.2 has not
relied on the Forensic Report of M/s Truth Labs in its final
Survey Report dated 25.05.2018. However, the
Surveyor/Defendant No.2 in its concluding remarks has stated
that M/s Truth Labs was of the view that the cause of fire was
not accidental and, therefore, the Insurer may keep this fact in
its mind while deciding the liability.

n. Placing reliance on the Forensic Report of M/s Truth Labs
wherein it had opined that the incident was caused by
"extraneously induced ignitable fire accelerants" and not
because of an electrical short circuit, the Defendant No.1, vide
letter dated 18.07.2018, repudiated the claim of the Plaintiff
herein.

o. Aggrieved by the same, the Plaintiff has approached this Court
by filing the present Suit.

p. Though, the Plaintiff had claimed Rs.10,35,48,376/- from the
Defendant No.1, but in the instant Suit, the Plaintiff has
claimed for Rs.4,69,99,729/-, which is the loss assessed by the
Defendant No.2/Surveyor.

1. It is the case of the Plaintiff that M/s Truth Labs had not been

                      appointed by the Surveyor but by the Defendant No.1, who is the Insurer,
                     and the same is contrary to the provision of [Section 64UM](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1991025/) of the Insurance
                     Act, 1938. It is also contended by the Plaintiff that the Forensic Report of
                     M/s Truth Labs cannot be accepted as out of 27 samples that it collected
                     from the premises of the Plaintiff only 2 samples had been sent for analysis.
   

2. Summons in the Suit were issued on 21.05.2019. Written Statements
   have been filed by the Defendants.

3. In its Written Statement, Defendant No.1 has primarily relied on the
   Forensic Report of M/s Truth Labs. In the Written Statement it is stated that
   Defendant No.1 had every right to depute an Investigator to ascertain the
   cause of fire and no prior permission from the Insurance Regulatory and
   Development Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as „the IRDAI‟) is
   required. It is further stated that there is no specific bar in the Insurance
   Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Protection of
   Policyholders' Interests and Allied Matters of Insurers) Regulations, 2017
   (hereinafter referred to as „the 2017 Regulation‟) in appointing such an
   Investigator by the Insurance Company to ascertain the genuineness and
   cause of the loss to determine the admissibility of the claim under the terms
   and conditions of the Policy. In the Written Statement it is not denied by the
   Defendant No.1 that Investigators are required to be IRDAI Surveyors or
   accredited/licensed Surveyors of the IRDAI.

4. In its Written Statement, the Surveyor/Defendant No.2 has stated that
   he is not a necessary party to the present proceedings as the object of the
   Surveyor is only to provide technical analysis in the form of opinion and it is
   for the Insurance Company to either accept the Report of the Surveyor or
   reject the same. Defendant No.2 has taken a specific stand that the claim of

                      the Plaintiff was rejected by the Defendant No.1 on the basis of the Forensic
                     Report of M/s Truth Labs and not on the basis of the Report of the
                     Defendant No.2.
   

5. On 11.05.2022, this Court framed the following issues:

"(i) Whether the repudiation of plaintiffs claim by the
defendant No.1 vide letter dated 18th July, 2018 is illegal
and void ab initio? OPP

(ii) Whether the appointment of M/s Truth labs as second
Surveyor/ Investigator has been done in accordance with
the IRDA Regulations? OPD

(iii) Whether the defendant no.2 has failed in his duty to
ascertain the cause of loss? OPP

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to indemnification of
Rs.4,69,99,729/- in terms of Standard Fire and Special
Perils Policy along with interest pendente lite, pre-
litigation interest amounting to Rs. 1,51,12,022/- and
interest as per the IRDA (Protection of Policy holders'
Interest) Regulations, 2002? OPP

(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to cost? OPP "

1. On behalf of the Plaintiff, the Director of the Plaintiff - Parmod
   Gupta (PW-1) was examined. On behalf of the Insurance Company, Mr.
   Santosh Kumar Hembram, who is the Deputy Manager of Defendant
   No.1/Insurance Company, was examined as DW-1; Mr. Atul Kumar, who is
   the authorised signatory of Defendant No.2 herein, was examined as DW-2;
   and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Shrivastava, who was the employee of M/s Truth
   Labs and had conducted the investigation, was examined as DW-3.

2. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff that the Investigator

                      was not appointed by the Surveyor. He states that [Section 64UM](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1991025/) of the
                     Insurance Act, 1938 specifically provides that no person shall act as a
                     Surveyor or loss assessor in respect of general insurance business after the
                     expiry of a period of one year from the commencement of the Insurance
                     Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 unless the Surveyor possesses such academic
                     qualifications as may be specified by the regulations made under the [Insurance Act, 1938](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1656199/) or is a member of a professional body of Surveyors and
                     loss assessors, namely, the Indian Institute of Insurance Surveyors and Loss
                     Assessors. He states that unless the licence is approved by the IRDAI, any
                     Surveyor is not competent to give any Report for an insurance loss.
   

3. He states that the Insurance Act, 1938 does not make any provision
   for the insurance companies to appoint an Investigator on its own and only a
   Surveyor under Regulation 13 of the IRDAI (Insurance Surveyors and Loss
   Assessors) Regulations, 2015 can take an expert opinion wherever required.
   He states that Defendant No.1 has illegally appointed M/s Truth Labs as a
   Forensic Investigator and the same is in blatant violation of Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938. He states that the Defendant No.1 does not have
   the authority to appoint a second Surveyor or call for an independent Report
   on its own whims and fancies. He further states that M/s Truth Labs is a
   private agency which is not accredited by the IRDAI and its findings lack
   credibility.

4. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff further states that a perusal of the
   Surveyor's Report indicates that the Surveyor has assessed the loss at
   Rs.4,69,99,729/- and after adjustments, the Surveyor has assessed the total
   loss at Rs.4,46,49,743/-. He states that there is nothing in the Survey Report
   to state that the Surveyor was of the opinion that the fire was caused by

                      "extraneously induced ignitable fire accelerants", i.e. "man made" or
                     "induced by the Plaintiff". He states that the observations and verifications
                     of the Surveyor's Report also does not state that fire was not a cause of
                     short-circuit. He states that the Surveyor has only quoted the findings of M/s
                     Truth Labs which was appointed by the Respondent No.1 herein and not by
                     the Respondent No.2/Surveyor. He, therefore, states that going by the
                     Surveyor's Report, the Plaintiff is entitled to the amount of loss as assessed
                     by the Surveyor. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff has also relied on [Regulation 15](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/157191/) of the 2017 Regulations wherein it is stated that in case a
                     Surveyor has to be appointed for assessing the loss claimed, it has to be
                     appointed within 72 hours of the receipt of intimation from the insured and
                     within seven days of claim intimation, the insurer/Surveyor has to inform
                     the insured/claimant of the essential documents and other requirements that
                     the claimant should submit in support of the claim. He further states that the
                     said Regulation provides that the Surveyor is required to commence the
                     survey immediately, and in any case within 48 hours of appointment unless
                     prevented by contingency and an interim Report recording physical details
                     of the loss must be prepared and forwarded/uploaded to the insurer at the
                     earliest, but not later than 15 days from the first survey visit. A copy of this
                     Interim Report must be supplied to the insured if requested. He states that
                     the regulation imposes a time-bound statutory duty on the licensed Surveyor
                     to submit a Final Report after completing loss assessment and the Surveyor
                     should submit the Final Report within 30 days of appointment for simple
                     claims and for complex claims, the regulation relaxes the outer limit to 90
                     days from appointment. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff states that the
                     Defendants delayed the claim for nearly 16 months thereby violating [Regulation 15](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/157191/) of the 2017 Regulations.
   

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Defendants state that the Insurer
   was within its right to repudiate the claim of the Plaintiff because the fire
   was not accidental but resulted from "man-made efforts" intended to achieve
   wrongful gain. He further states that Defendant No.1 was within its rights to
   appoint an Investigator to ascertain the actual cause of loss and the
   genuineness of a claim. He states that prior permission from the IRDAI is
   not required for such an appointment. Further, learned Counsel for the
   Defendants relies on the Report from M/s Truth Labs, which concluded that
   the fire was caused by "extraneously induced ignitable fire accelerants"

rather than an electrical short circuit. He also states that the Plaintiff
committed a fundamental breach of the insurance policy, which stipulates
that benefits are forfeited if a claim is fraudulent or if the loss is occasioned
by the wilful act or connivance of the insured. He further contends that any
delay in processing the claim and submitting the Final Report was attributed
to the "nature of loss," the need to examine voluminous documents, and
enquiries from various authorities. He further submits that the delay is also
attributed to the Plaintiff as he could not submit the required documents on
time. He states that the "Final Claim Bill" was submitted by the Plaintiff
nearly after a year from the date of incident. He further submits that
Defendant No.2 is not a necessary or proper party to the present proceedings
and be deleted from the array of parties as a Surveyor provides an
independent technical analysis in the form of an opinion that is not binding
on either the insurer or the insured. He states that there is no direct
contractual relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.2.
13. Heard learned Counsels for the Parties.

1. The Plaintiff has challenged the Impugned Letter/Order of
   Repudiation dated 18.07.2018 of the Defendant No.1 rejecting the claims of
   the Plaintiff claiming loss on account of a fire that broke out on the
   intervening night of 29/30.04.2017 at the Plaintiff's premises.

2. The said Letter/Order of Repudiation only relies on the detailed
   Report submitted by the M/s Truth Labs and an Investigator was appointed
   by the Defendant No.1. M/s Truth Labs in its Report dated 25.09.2017 has
   observed that fire which caused loss to the premises and stocks of the
   Plaintiff was not on account of electrical short circuit in a nearby electrical
   pole and not on the account of fire travelling through the stainless steel duct
   into the premises, but was on account of extraneously induced ignitable fire
   accelerants which was only used in huge quantity of stocks stored in the
   premises of the Plaintiff consisting of stainless steel products packed in
   corrugated boxes and polythene wraps, fabric yarns, etc. The said Report
   also records "taking into consideration the means, motive and opportunity to
   cause such fire, the possibility of the management or the staff members
   being directly or indirectly responsible for its ignition and propagation
   cannot be ignored". The Impugned Letter/Order of Repudiation also notices
   that the Surveyor although assessed the loss, but the Surveyor has also
   concluded that the cause of fire apparently is not accidental.

3. The Defendant No.1 has relied on Condition No.8 of the Policy taken
   by the Plaintiff which stipulates that the claim is found to be fraudulent or
   any false declaration is made or used in support thereof or any fraudulent
   means or devices are used by the insured or any one acting on its behalf to
   obtain any benefit under the Policy or either loss or damage is occasioned by
   the wilful act or the connivance of the insured, the benefits of the policy

                      shall be forfeited. The Defendant No.1 repudiated the claim on the ground
                     that the Plaintiff tried to manipulate the loss and has tried to make an
                     unlawful case.
   

4. Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938 stipulates the conditions
   necessary for being appointed as a Surveyor. Section 64UM of the Insurance
   Act, 1938 provides that Section 64UM(4) read with the Regulations
   provides that any loss more than Rs. 20,000/- can be admitted for payment
   or settled by an insurer unless he has obtained a Report on the loss that has
   occurred from a person who holds a licence issued under Section 64 UM to
   act as a Surveyor or loss assessor.

5. The Defendant No.2 in this case has been appointed as a Surveyor.
   The Surveyor/Defendant No.2 after conducting the investigation has given a
   Report on 25.05.2018. The Report also notes that the Defendant No.1 has
   appointed a Forensic agency, namely, M/s Truth Labs. There is nothing on
   record to indicate that the M/s Truth Labs is a Surveyor possessing the
   qualifications as stipulated under Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938. Regulation 13 of the IRDAI (Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors)
   Regulations, 2015 stipulates the duties of a Surveyor. Regulation 13(1)(p) of
   the said Regulations permits a Surveyor to take expert opinion wherever
   required. Admittedly, the Surveyor/Defendant No.2 has not taken the
   opinion of M/s Truth Labs.

6. Though the Plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs.10,35,48,376/-, but the
   Surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs. 4,69,99,729/-. The Surveyor has also
   taken note of the Report of the M/s Truth Labs.

7. In the opinion of this Court, it cannot be said that the opinion of the
   M/s Truth Labs has been accepted by the Surveyor/Defendant No.2. Despite

                      the findings of M/s Truth Labs, the Surveyor/Defendant No.2 has assessed
                     the loss of Rs. 4,69,99,729/- on the basis of its own independent survey. In
                     the absence of any material on record to indicate that the Investigator
                     possesses the qualifications of a Surveyor as required under [Section 64UM](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1991025/) of the Insurance Act, 1938, the Report of M/s Truth Labs cannot be given
                     any credence to.
   

8. In order to satisfy the conscience of this Court as to whether the fire
   was caused by "extraneously induced ignitable fire accelerants" or by short-
   circuit, this Court has examined in detail the cross-examination of DW-3,
   Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, the person who conducted the investigation on behalf
   of M/s Truth Labs.

9. A perusal of the cross-examination of DW-3 indicates that the
   Investigator though has taken 27 samples, but has given only 2 samples for
   analysis on the basis of which alone the findings have been derived by the
   Investigator. The Investigator also has candidly admitted that the Report
   given by the Investigator does not contain any reference to the condition of
   the building of the Plaintiff pursuant to the aftermath of fire and that the
   Report was prepared without considering the condition of the Plaintiff's
   building as it existed on the intervening night of 29/30.04.2017 when the fire
   incident took place. The cross-examination also reveals that the Investigator
   has also not acquainted himself with the financial health of the Plaintiff
   Company and that he has not even ascertained the conduct of the Plaintiff in
   the aftermath of the fire before attributing motive.

10. Relevant Question and Answers to questions No. 40, 41, 44, 46, 49,
    50, 51, 55, 60, 80, 94, 96, 104, 105, 107 and 110 are reproduced as under:-

"Q.40 Is it correct to say that your Report dated 25th

September 2017 (Ex. DW-1/3) does not contain any
reference to the condition of the Plaintiffs building
destroyed in the immediate aftermath of the
devastating fire on intervening night of 29th and 30th
April 2017. What do you have to say?

Ans. It is correct.

Q.41 Is it correct to say that you had prepared the
Report dated 25.9.2017 (Ex. DW-1/3) without
considering the situation of the Plaintiff‟s building as it
existed on the intervening night of 29th and 30th April
2017 (immediate aftermath of the devastating fire).
What do you have to say?

Ans. It is correct.

Q.44 Can you please inform us which science
laboratory has been set up by M/s. Truth Labs and is
solely and entirely operated by them?
Ans. It is correct that M/s. Truth Labs does not have
any science laboratory which is solely and entirely
operated by them. M/s. Truth Labs has MOU with
other Labs for testing.

Q.46 Would it be correct to state that the samples
bearing No. 1 to 30 collected by you and your team on
its visit to Plaintiff‟s premises on 16th May 2017 were
sent for testing to LUCID Testing Lab Hyderabad?

Ans. Yes, it is correct.

Q.49 I suggest to you that having neither tested the
samples bearing No. 1 to 30 nor having conducted
"GC-MS ANALYSIS" and "stereomicroscope and
Electrical Conductivity studies" you cannot depose
the veracity of the results of the afore mentioned tests
as mentioned in your Report dated 25.09.2017.

Ans. Yes, it is correct.

Q. 50 Can you tell us what was the nature and/or
character of the "burnt debris" collected as sample
No. 2?

Ans. I do not know about the nature of the burnt
debris collected as sample No. 2 mentioned in Report
dated 25.09.2017.

Q. 51 Can you tell us what was the nature and/or
character of the "burnt debris" collected as sample
No. 4?

Ans. I do not know about the nature of the burnt
debris collected as sample No. 4 mentioned in Report
dated 25.09.2017.

Q.55 Would it be correct to state that you have
nowhere in your Report dated 25th September, 2017
mentioned the nature of the material lost in the fire and
collected by you in samples bearing no. 1 to 26 except
sample nos. 2 & 4?

Ans. It is correct.

(Vol.) Sample No. 1 to 26 were burnt material
collected by me.

Q.60 Did you acquaint yourself with the financial
health of the Plaintiff during your visit at the Plaintiffs
premises?

Ans. No.

Q.80 I suggest to you that it was incumbent on you to
ascertain the conduct of the Plaintiff in the aftermath
of the fire, before attributing the motive of causing fire
in your Report on the Plaintiff. What do you have to

say?

Ans. I have no where in my Report said that it was
Plaintiff which had intentionally caused fire.

Q.94 I suggest to you that the Report dated 25.09.2017
(Exhibit DW-1/3) has been prepared by you without
considering the nature of the material undergone
Forensic analysis. What do you have to say?
Ans. Yes, it is correct.

Q.96 Can you point out from your Report what
according to you was the origin of the fire?

Ans. Origin of fire is not mentioned in my Report.

Q.104 Did you verify the reason for the disruption of
electricity at the electrical pole adjacent to the
Plaintiff‟s premises on the intervening night of
29.4.2017-30.4.2017 i.e. the date of loss at the
Plaintiff‟s premises?

Ans. Yes, electricity supply was disrupted in the nearby
industries on the date of incident i.e. the intervening
night of 29.4.2017-30.4.2017. It was verified as there
was a storm on that day due to which electricity could
have been disrupted at the electrical pole adjacent to
the Plaintiff‟s premises.

Q.105 Would it be correct to state that the storm on the
intervening night of 29.4.2017-30.4.2017 could have
caused electrical short circuit at the electrical pole
adjacent to the Plaintiffs premises?

Ans. It is correct.

Q.107 Would it be correct to state that in your Report
you have accepted the version given by Mr. Rakesh
Kumar, eye-witness to the incident?

Ans. Yes, it is correct.

Q.110 I suggest to you that finding in your Report that
"extraneously induced fire accelerants" were used to
cause fire is without any basis inasmuch as 24 samples
did not contain any remanent of hydrocarbons. What
do you have to say?

Ans. It is correct."
(emphasis supplied)

1. A perusal of these questions does not inspire any confidence in this
   Court accepting the Report of M/s Truth Labs. The Report is based only on
   the analysis of 2 samples without even considering the motive, financial
   health of the Plaintiff, leaves much to be desired.

2. What is more significant is that DW-3 accepts that the storm on the
   intervening night of 29/30.04.2017 at the Plaintiff's premises could have
   caused an electrical short circuit at the electrical pole. Further, a specific
   suggestion was put to DW-3 that M/s Truth Labs had not tested the samples
   bearing Nos. 1 to 30 and after not conducting the GC/MS analysis and
   stereo-microscope and electrical conductivity studies, the Investigator
   cannot depose the veracity of the results as mentioned in the Report. The
   Investigator accepted the abovementinoed suggestion.

3. The Investigator has not been able to state the nature and character of
   the burnt debris collected as Sample No.2 or the nature or character of burnt
   debris collected as Sample No.4. Only chemical analysis of Sample Nos.2
   and 4 was conducted by the method of Gas Chromatography and Mass
   Spectrography and chemical analysis of Sample Nos. 27 and 28 was
   conducted by the method of Sterio-Microscope Examination and for others

                      nothing had been done.
   

4. In any event, when a specific question is put as to whether motive of
   setting the premises on fire can been deduced from the chemical analysis of
   the samples so collected, it has been accepted that the motive cannot be
   ascertained by the samples, without ascertaining the status of the building
   prior to the fire and after the fire. And also, without ascertaining the
   financial status of the Plaintiff Company before the fire. Further, there was
   no basis on which M/s Truth Labs could have given a Report that the fire
   was orchestrated by the Plaintiff or any other person.

5. In fact, it is pertinent to mention that the witness/DW-3 has accepted
   the version given by Mr. Rakesh Kumar, who was the eye-witness. Mr.
   Rakesh Kumar stated that there was a storm on the intervening night of
   29/30.04.2017 at the Plaintiff's premises and a short circuit has been caused
   because of the storm. There is nothing in the Report to state that the storm
   could not have caused the short circuit leading to the fire.

6. DW-2 is the officer of the Surveyor, who has also not stated that M/s
   Truth Labs is a qualified Surveyor capable of conducting surveys and
   assessing loss or investigating into the incident of fire accident under Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938.

7. Pertinently when a specific question was put to the Surveyor that the
   fire in question has originated from the electric pole outside the Plaintiff's
   premises, the Surveyor has answered that it could be possible. DW-2 was
   the witness of the Surveyor, has also not denied the statement of the eye-
   witness regarding the strong winds on the date of incident.

8. This Court would also like to reproduce the observations/verifications
   made in the Surveyor's Report and the same reads as under:

SINGH
Signing Date:21.03.2026
21:05:18

SINGH
Signing Date:21.03.2026
21:05:18
32. Though, it is now settled law that the Surveyor's Report is not
conclusive and the Insurance Company may or may not accept the
Surveyor's Report. It is also settled law that very valid reasons have to be
given by the Insurance Company as to why the Surveyor's Report cannot be
accepted. The Impugned Letter/Order of Repudiation does indicate that the
Surveyor has assessed the loss. However, it adds a line that the Surveyor has
also concluded that the cause of fire is not accidental, a fact which is not
available in the Surveyor's Report. The Surveyor has not found that the
cause of fire is not accidental. The Surveyor only states that there is a Report
of M/s Truth Labs stating that the fire is apparently not accidental.

1. Since the Defendant No.1 has only relied on the M/s Truth Labs
   Report which does not inspire confidence in this Court apart from the fact
   that it has been given by a person who is not qualified under the Insurance
   Act, 1938 and in the absence of any other reason given by the Insurance
   Company as to why it is not accepting the loss as assessed by the Surveyor,

                      this Court is inclined to pass a decree in favour of the Plaintiff for a sum of
                     Rs. 4,69,99,729/-.
   

2. The Defendant No.1 is directed to pay the said amount within a period
   of 08 weeks from today.

3. The Defendant No.1 is also directed to pay interest on the said amount
   which is at 6% per annum from the date of Surveyor's Report till the date of
   payment.

4. With these directions and observations, the present Petition is
   disposed of along with pending application(s), if any.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
MARCH 19, 2026
Rahul/JR