Delhi District Court
Surya Roshni Ltd vs Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance ... on 24 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF Sh. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL
District Judge (Commercial Court) -02,
Central, Tis Hazari.
DLCT010049632025
CS (COMM.) No. 386/2025
CNR No. DLCT010049632025
In the matter of
(As per amended memo of parties)
M/s Surya Roshni Ltd.
Through Mr. Anuj Sharma, Manager (Commercial)
Authorized Person
Rajendra Place, Padma Tower-1
New Delhi 110008 ......Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Company India Ltd.
through its AR
Plot No. 39, 2nd Floor,
Samyak Tower, Pusa Road,
Near to Metro Pillar No. 120
Karol Bagh,
New Delhi 110005
Also at:-
Dare House, II Floor,
M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd.
Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 1 of 34 )
RAJESH Digitally
by RAJESH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2026.04.25
GOEL 11:11:23 +0530
Parry's Corner, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu-600001
Also at:-
Optionz. 2nd Floor,
Opposite Hotel Nest,
18, S.P Colony
Off CG Road,
Ahmedabad,
Gujarat-380009 ......Defendant
Date of filing of suit : 07.04.2025
Date of Argument : 20.04.2026
Date of Judgment : 24.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit for recovery of Rs 20,46,478/- (Rs Twenty Lakh Forty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Eight only) filed by M/s Surya Roshni Ltd, through its authorised person Mr. Anuj Sharma, (herein after referred to as "Plaintiff company") against the defendant M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Limited (hereinafter referred to as "defendant company").
M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd. Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 2 of 34 ) RAJESH Digitally by RAJESH signed KUMAR Date: 2026.04.25 KUMAR GOEL GOEL 11:11:29 +0530
2. It is also pertinent to mention that originally the present suit had been filed by the plaintiff company against five defendants arraying defendant company as defendant no.1, Praveen Pathak (Chief Technical Officer) as defendant no.2, Muthu B (General Manager claims) as defendant no.3, Mirash George (Regional Manager Claims) as defendant No. 4 and Jagdeesan V (Customer Service and Grievance Redressal) as defendant no.5. On 08.05.2025, on behalf of the plaintiff, it was stated that the plaintiff is not pressing the present claims against defendant No.2 to 5; consequently the aforesaid defendants were directed to be deleted and an amended memo of parties came to be filed.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the plaint are that plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956; vide Special Power of Attorney dated 19.07.2017, Anuj Sharma has been duly authorised to sign, verify and institute the present suit.
M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd.
Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 3 of 34 )
RAJESH Digitally
by RAJESH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2026.04.25
GOEL 11:11:34 +0530
4. It is the case of the plaintiff company that the plaintiff company had got insured its godown located at Survey No.33, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad, New Hyderabad-500083 (herein after referred to as 'Godown') for a sum of Rs. 50,00,00,000/- from the defendant company vide policy no. 2162/00762095/000/00, valid from, 00:01 hrs on 5.9.2022 to 23:59 hrs on 4.9.2023 ( herein after referred to as " Policy") against a premium of Rs 2,98,540/- under fire policy extended to cover acts of God.
5. It is the further case of the plaintiff company that due to heavy rains lashed in Hyderabad city and floods reported in various parts of Hyderabad, the plaintiff company was constrained to close their warehouse premises at 20:30 hrs and the same was remained close from intervening night from 8.10.2022 to 09.10.2022; due to the said calamity, the plaintiff company suffered huge losses at the godown; the plaintiff company through its broker M/s J.K Insurance Brokers Limited, intimated the loss to the defendant company vide email dated 10.10.2022; M/s Professional Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd were appointed as Surveyors M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd.
Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 4 of 34 )
RAJESH Digitally
by RAJESH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2026.04.25
GOEL 11:11:41 +0530
for surveying and assessing the loss; the Surveyor initially visited the godown of the plaintiff company on 11.10.2022 at 10:00 hrs and sent an email dated 31.10.2022 to the plaintiff company with LOR (List of Requirements) dated 31.10.2022; the Surveyor again visited the godown of the plaintiff company on 18.01.2023 and asked for further clarifications/ documents vide email dated 23.01.2023.
6. It is averred that various followup meetings and discussions were held between the plaintiff company and the defendant company; based on the documents provided by the plaintiff company and inspections report of the surveyor, vide letter dated 25.05.2023, the plaintiff company was informed by the defendant company that as per the surveyor report, the cause of loss was seepage and not flood/inundation, hence the claim of the plaintiff company does not qualify for the payment as the loss was said to be not due to any of the insured perils; the Surveyor Professional Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd sent an email dated 07.08.2023 to the defendant company regarding final assessment of the stock value with final assessment sheet but the M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd.
Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 5 of 34 )
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2026.04.25
GOEL 11:11:46 +0530
defendant company brutally denied the same.
7. It is further stated that since the defendant company refused to liquidate the legitimate claim amount to the plaintiff company, the plaintiff company lodged a complaint to IRDA on 24.02.2024; the defendant company intentionally mentioned a wrong claim number and claim amount before the IRDA vide letter dated 16.03.2024; the defendant company is intentionally trying to wriggle out its legal liability payable to the plaintiff company by using the alleged surveyor observations which were made under the influence of the defendant company; the defendant company is liable to pay an amount of Rs 20,46,478/- to the plaintiff company alongwith interest @ 18% p.a on the said amount from 10.10.2022.; a legal notice dated 14.05.2024 was sent to the defendant company but despite the service of legal notice, defendant company failed to accede to the request of the plaintiff company. Hence, the present suit was filed.
8. Since, the subject matter of the suit is a commercial dispute, therefore, the plaintiff company M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd. Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 6 of 34 ) RAJESH Digitally by RAJESH signed KUMAR Date: 2026.04.25 KUMAR GOEL GOEL 11:11:52 +0530 is said to have approached Central DLSA in terms of section 12 (A) of the Commercial Court Act, 2015 and the Central DLSA has released a non-starter report dated 05.12.2024 in pre-institution mediation process.
Filing of Written Statement:
9. On being served the summons of the suits, the defendant company put appearance and filed the written statement taking various objections to the effect that the claim of the plaintiff company is not maintainable as no peril covered in the policy has occurred; as per the survey report dated 09.05.2023, the cause of the alleged loss was due to seepage with water oozing from the floor; the insurance policy does not cover losses caused by seepage and therefore, the actual cause of damage falls outside the scope of the insured perils; the plaintiff company has concealed the material fact that despite multiple reminders from the defendant company, the plaintiff company failed to submit the details of the extent of loss suffered .
M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd.
Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 7 of 34 )
RAJESH Digitally
by RAJESH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2026.04.25
GOEL 11:11:56 +0530
10. On Merits, the defendant company has denied all the allegations as averred in the plaint and stated that as per the report of the surveyor dated 09.05.2023, the damage was caused due to seepage and since, no flood-related accumulation occurred therefore, the alleged loss does not arise from any period covered under the policy.
11. The plaintiff company filed the replication denying the allegations made in the written statement and reiterated the facts as mentioned in the plaint.
Settlement of issues and Fixing the Schedule for Second Case Management Hearing:-
12. From the pleadings of the parties and documents on record, vide order dated 22.08.2025 the following issues were framed by this court and the schedule of Second Case Management hearing was fixed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the amount of Rs 20,46,478/- as prayed for? (OPP)
2. In case the issue no.1 is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for any M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd.
Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 8 of 34 ) Digitally signed RAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date: 2026.04.25 GOEL 11:12:01 +0530 interest? If so,
3. Relief Evidence led by the parties:-
13. In support of its case, the plaintiff company has examined its AR Anuj Sharma as PW1. PW1 Anuj Sharma has filed his evidence by way of affidavit ExPW1/1 and has deposed on the lines of the averments made in the plaint. He also relied upon / proved the following documents:-
S.no Document/Particulars Exhibit(s)
1. Copy of special power of attorney ExPW1/A
2. Copy of insurance policy ExPW1/B
3. Copy of the newspaper cutting ExPW1/C
4. Copy of e-mail and letter of ExPW1/D requirement dated 31.10.2022 (colly)
5. Copy of letter dated 25.05.2023 ExPW1/E
6. Photo of godown ExPW1/F
7. Copy of e-mail and final ExPW1/G assessment (colly)
8. Copy of the complaint and ExPW1/H communication (colly)
9. Copy of communication dated ExPW1/I 14.05.2024 alongwith the postal (colly) receipts
10. Non-starter report ExPW1/J M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd.
Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 9 of 34 ) RAJESH Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date: 2026.04.25 GOEL 11:12:06 +0530
14. PW1 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant company. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff company and the plaintiff evidence was closed on 22.09.2025.
15. In support of its case, the defendant company has examined one Pailla Raghuveer Reddy, Surveyor as DW1 and Amitabh Bhatnagar, AR of the defendant company as DW2.
16. DW1 Pailla Raghuveer Reddy filed his evidence by way of affidavit ExDW1/A and proved the survey report dated 09.05.2023 ExDW1/1 and copy of addendum report dated 11.08.2023 ExDW1/2.
17. DW2 Amitabh Bhatnagar filed his evidence by way of affidavit ExDW2/A and has deposed on the lines of the stand taken in the written statement.
18. DW1 Pailla Raghuveer Reddy and DW2 Amitabh Bhatnagar were cross examined by the Ld counsel for the plaintiff company.
M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd.
Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 10 of 34 )
Digitally signed by
RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR
KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2026.04.25
GOEL 11:12:11 +0530
Arguments made by the Ld. Counsels:-
19. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff company submitted that the plaintiff company had suffered the loss due to the heavy rain and flood in the intervening night of 8th and 9th October, 2022; there is no dispute that the plaintiff company had taken the policy against the flooding and inundation; the articles/ products got damaged due to the flooding and inundation and plaintiff suffered huge loss which is within the limit of insurance cover. He further submitted that the contention of the defendant company as raised in the written statement that loss to the plaintiff company was due to the seepage, is not tenable. Regarding the quantum of loss, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff company is confining its relief to the extent of the loss as assessed by the Surveyor and reported in his addendum report Ex.DW1/2 in the sum of Rs.13,74,263/-. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon two judicial authorities i.e. "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Dipendu Ghosh & Anr., 2009 (2) CPR 417 (NC)" and "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Gondamal Hardyal Mal, 2009 4 CPJ M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd.
Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 11 of 34 )
RAJESH Digitally
by RAJESH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2026.04.25
GOEL 11:12:16 +0530
(NC) 165".
20. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the defendant company submitted that there is no dispute about the fact that the plaintiff company had taken the insurance policy; he has drawn my attention towards the insurance policy and submitted that the loss was against the fire, flooding and inundation, etc., which is not there in the present case; by referring to the report of Surveyor (Ex.DW1/1), he submitted that loss was due to the seepage and not because of any flooding and inundation; he has taken me to the cross examination of PW1 Anuj Sharma and submitted that he (PW1) was not present at the time when the incident took place and according to him (PW1) he had visited the spot after 14 to 18 days of the incident; no list of documents and invoices has been provided by the plaintiff company; the plaintiff company is claiming to have the stock of more than Rs. Two Crore and in case there was flooding and inundation, as claimed by the plaintiff company, the entire stock could have been damaged; how is it possible that flooding and inundation was only in one part of the godown and not in the entire godown. He M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd.
Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 12 of 34 )
RAJESH Digitally
by RAJESH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2026.04.25
GOEL 11:12:20 +0530
further submitted that since the plaintiff company has not disputed the damages as assessed by the Surveyor in his report Ex.DW1/1, therefore, he is confining his arguments only to the extent that the loss suffered by the plaintiff company is not covered under the policy. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon one judgment passed in the case of "Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., 2016 1 CPR (SC) 456".
21. I have gone through the material available on record and heard the Ld. Counsels of both the parties. I have also gone through the case law cited at bar.
Discussion and Finding on Issues:-
Issue No.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.20,46,478/- from the defendant as asked for in the plaint ? (OPP)
22. In the present case, it is undisputed that the plaintiff company obtained the insurance policy ExPW1/B from the defendant company. It is also not in dispute that, during the relevant period, there was M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd.
Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 13 of 34 )
RAJESH Digitally
by RAJESH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2026.04.25
GOEL 11:12:26 +0530
heavy rainfall in the area where the plaintiff company's godown was located. Upon a careful examination and analysis of the pleadings of the parties,evidence led by them, along with the arguments advanced, the following two contentions emerge for adjudication:-
a) Whether the loss suffered by the plaintiff company falls within the coverage of the policy or not?
b) If so, what is the extent of the actual loss sustained by the plaintiff company?
23. Now I would be taking up the aforesaid contentions.
(a) Whether the loss suffered by the plaintiff company falls within the coverage of the policy or not?
24. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence adduced by both parties. As noted earlier, the plaintiff company examined its Authorized Representative, Anuj Sharma, as PW1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd.
Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 14 of 34 )
Digitally signed by
RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR
KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2026.04.25
GOEL 11:12:32 +0530
Ex.PW1/1, which is merely a reiteration of the averments made in the plaint. Accordingly, reference will be made only to the relevant portions of his cross-examination that pertain to the issue under consideration, and not otherwise.
25. PW1 Anuj Sharma during his cross examination replied that he is aware of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy taken by the plaintiff company from the defendant; he himself had purchased the said policy on behalf of the plaintiff company; he is aware of the difference between seepage and flooding; he came to know about the flooding/ peril at the godown around 11-12, October, 2022; he had visited the premises in question in person after the said flooding / peril during the period from 15 - 30 October, 2022 and at the time of flooding / peril at the premises of the Plaintiff company he was there at Delhi only.
26. PW1 further replied that at the time of inspection of the premises by the surveyor, Godown Keeper and Commercial Officer were present there; it is difficult for him to tell the level of the water M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd.
Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 15 of 34 )
RAJESH Digitally
by RAJESH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2026.04.25
GOEL 11:12:36 +0530
raised due to the flooding because it took place on Saturday and Sunday; nobody was there in the premises during that period because of the week holidays. PW1 has denied the suggestion that whatever the loss was suffered by the plaintiff company, it was not because of flooding / peril. He stated that in the month of September, 2022, there was a similar incident of flooding in the same premises and the loss suffered by the plaintiff company was duly settled by the defendant company for that. PW1 admitted that the policy in question does not cover the loss caused due to seepage but it covers the loss suffered due to rain or flooding.
27. PW1 further replied that he does not exactly remember the quantity of the goods which were destroyed or damaged due to the flooding and stated that the detail of the same has already been placed on the record; admitted that the few goods lying in the said premises were not affected due to the said flooding. PW1 denied the suggestion that the water entered the premises through the walls or through the floor and stated that it came inside through the gate and water came from outside.
M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd.
Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 16 of 34 )
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2026.04.25
GOEL 11:12:42 +0530
28. PW1 did not accept the suggestion that in case there is a flooding in the godown, it would affect the entire goods lying in the godown and not partially. In this regard he stated that the products / goods are kept in layers or in the formation of staging, therefore, the goods which were placed lower side got affected; admitted that all the goods which were there at the floor of the premises were not affected; denied the further suggestion that the claim of the plaintiff has been repudiated correctly by the defendant company as per the report of the independent surveyor; stated that the insurance policy in question is silent about the rate of interest to be claimed by the plaintiff from the defendant; at the time when the incident took place at the premises in question, the goods/ products were worth Rs.2 - 2.5 Crores there but he cannot tell the exact value of those goods; the goods/products worth Rs.20 lakhs approximately got damaged due to the flooding.
29. Even during his cross examination, PW1 Anuj Sharma remained consistent with the contentions raised in the present case and the Ld. Counsel for the defendant company was unable to elicit anything M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd. Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 17 of 34 ) RAJESH Digitally by RAJESH signed KUMAR Date: 2026.04.25 KUMAR GOEL GOEL 11:12:46 +0530 contrary for demolishing the claim of the plaintiff company. During his cross examination, PW1 denied the suggestion that plaintiff company had suffered the loss because of seepage only and not because of flooding etc. He also denied the suggestion that the water had entered to the godown through walls or through the floor. He also explained as to why the entire stock lying in the godown could not be affected. Rest of the cross examination was regarding those facts which are not in dispute.
30. Coming to the testimonies of witnesses examined by the defendant company, DW1 Pailla Raghuveer Reddy is the Surveyor who had been appointed by the defendant company to assess the loss. He proved his report dated 09.05.2023 as Ex.DW1/1 and addendum report dated 11.08.2023 as Ex.DW1/2.
31. Although, DW1 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff company but the aforesaid reports have not been disputed by him.
M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd.
Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 18 of 34 )
RAJESH Digitally
by RAJESH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2026.04.25
GOEL 11:12:51 +0530
32. DW2 Amitabh Bhatnagar, working as AGM with the defendant company, filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW2/A wherein he deposed that as per the Surveyor report dated 09.05.2023 (Ex.DW1/1), the cause of the alleged loss was seepage and there was no flooding or inundation. He also referred to the addendum report Ex.DW1/2.
33. To sum up, the defendant company adduced the evidence in order to prove the aforesaid two reports Ex.DW1/1 and Ex.DW1/2, which have not been disputed by the plaintiff company and also the contention that the cause of loss was seepage and not the flooding and inundation.
34. In the background of the rival contentions as raised by both the parties, the reports of the Surveyor would be material evidence to decide the issue under consideration.
35. PW1 Anuj Sharma in his evidence filed by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1 has referred to copy of e- mail and LOR as Ex.PW1/D (Colly). During his cross examination, the said communications/ M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd.
Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 19 of 34 )
RAJESH Digitally
by RAJESH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2026.04.25
GOEL 11:12:56 +0530
documents have not been disputed by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant company. Thus, the said communications/ documents are being considered as have gone unchallenged.
36. One of the communications dated 31.10.2022, which is part of Ex.PW1/D (colly), was sent to the plaintiff company by the Surveyor, would indicate that the Surveyor had visited the godown on 11.10.2022 after the incident and inspected the premises and also the stocks in the presence of the representatives of the plaintiff company and recorded inter alia the following observations:-
The warehouse premises is located at cellar of a Pucca building of RCC construction with Cellar + ground floor above at Sy. No.33, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad, Hyderabad-500 083. We were told that the warehouse premises was closed on 08.10.2022 (Saturday) at around 2030 hrs after turning of electrical mains incl. CCTV. Next day Sunday being a holiday, the warehouse opened on 10.10.2022 (Monday) at around 0930 hrs by Mr. K. Sathyanarayana, Warehouse incharge & noticed water logging at their premises and immediately informed to the building owner and their superiors about the incident. Upon inspection, found part of the premises was water affected and after taking the precautionary measures, started the dewatering process & completed at around 1730 hrs. Also noticed that water continued to ooze out from the flooring towards north side at places and once again dewatered from the premises at M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd.
Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 20 of 34 ) RAJESH Digitally by RAJESH signed KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date: 2026.04.25 GOEL 11:13:02 +0530 around 1830 hrs on the same day.
We were also informed that heavy rains were experienced in and around Hyderabad city ind. Bowenpally & its surroundings on 8th & 09th Oct 2022.
During survey, observed water seepages/oozing at places of the godown (north side) and draining towards east side (water collection pit/sump). We did not observe any water marks towards south side and stocks were also not affected towards the same area. Further, we observed that only bottom layers of the stocks like LED lights of various kinds that too only in part of the godown & few appliance items were affected. From the tell tale marks it is observed that 6" to 12" water was accumulated at water affected part of the warehouse due to seepage / oozing of water from the floor / walls into the cellar works.
Further also learnt that on 11.10.2022 morning hours, the dewatering operation was carried out as the water continues to ooze & fills the sump.
We did not observe any signs of flood/ inundation at your premises and the area nearby & also were told that no rain water has entered from the main entrance.
37. In the report of the Surveyor Ex.DW1/1, one of the observations as noted herein above was reiterated under the heading 'Liability' while stating "during survey, observed water seepages/oozing at places of the godown (north side) and draining towards east side (water collection pit/sump). We did not observe any water marks towards south side and stocks were also not affected towards the same area. Further, we observed that only bottom layers of the stocks like LED lights of various kinds that too only M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd.
Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 21 of 34 )
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2026.04.25
GOEL 11:13:07 +0530
in part of the godown & few appliance items were affected. From the tell tale marks it is observed that 6" to 12" water was accumulated at water affected part of the warehouse due to seepage / oozing of water from the floor / walls into the cellar works".
38. On the basis of the aforesaid observations, the claim of the plaintiff company came to be rejected vide communication dated 25.05.2023 Ex.PW1/E primarily on the ground that there was a seepage.
39. Even if we go by the communication of the Surveyor dated 31.10.2022 part of Ex.PW1/D (colly) and the report of the Surveyor Ex.DW1/1, it stands established that there was heavy downpour on the intervening night of 8th and 9th October, 2022; the Incharge of the whorehouse/ godown noticed the water logging in the premises; efforts were made for de-watering the premises but water continued to ooze out from the flooring.
40. According to the defendant company it was a case of seepage only and is not covered under the policy. Here it is pertinent to mention that as per the M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd. Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 22 of 34 ) Digitally signed RAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.04.25 11:13:11 +0530 policy Ex.PW1/B, insurance cover was given for the damage or destruction caused to insured property by certain unforeseen events as mentioned in the policy including on account of Storm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane, Tornado, Tsunami, Flood and Inundation. In the present case, only the event of Flood and Inundation is relevant and have been pressed into service by the plaintiff company. According to the plaintiff company, the plaintiff company has suffered the loss due to the flooding and inundation and not because of seepage only.
41. Here it is imperative to refer the case of "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. J.K. Cement Works, (2020) 19 SCC 794", wherein it was observed:-
"10. So far as the term "inundation"
is concerned, it can be used to refer to both the act of overflow of water over land that is normally dry and to the state of being inundated. The inundation can also be intentional, which is sometimes carried out for military purposes, as well as for agricultural and river management purposes. In the latter sense i.e. as a state of being, inundation refers to accumulation of water in which objects or land may be submerged. In simpler terms, inundation can be used to refer both the act of overflow of water as well as the result of such overflow.
M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd.
Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 23 of 34 )
RAJESH Digitally signed
by RAJESH
KUMAR KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2026.04.25
GOEL 11:13:16 +0530
11. It flows from the above
discussion that overflow of water due to a flood may result in the state of inundation. As discussed above, floods are of different types, and may be caused due to several factors complementing each other. Usually, non- coastal floods originate from rainfall, but the magnitude of rainfall sufficient to cause a flood, and the damage that a flood causes, may vary depending on a variety of aspects such as the location of land (low-lying or altitudinous), the water retention capacity of the soil, and the density of population and manmade construction in the area, among other things. In rare cases, a non-coastal flood may also occur without any rainfall. For instance, shortcomings in the construction of a dam may lead to its complete breakdown, resulting in a flood.
12. It is not the case of the appellant that the coal was not properly stocked or that there was any negligence on part of the respondent. The only arguments advanced by the appellant are : firstly, that the terms "flood" and "inundation" cannot be equated, and, secondly, that "flood" needs to be understood in a narrow sense to refer only to the overflowing of a water body, and to exclude instances where overflowing of water occurs due to excessive rainfall.
12.1. We have already highlighted that the terms "flood" and "inundation" are often used synonymously to refer to the act of overflowing of water over land that is generally dry. Therefore, the first argument of the appellant cannot be sustained.
12.2. Similarly, given our prior discussion on pluvial floods, which occur independently of a water body, it is clear that floods are not restricted to overflow of water M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd. Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 24 of 34 ) RAJESH Digitally by RAJESH signed KUMAR Date: 2026.04.25 KUMAR GOEL GOEL 11:13:20 +0530 bodies. Thus, the second argument raised by the appellant also lacks merit.
12.3. Furthermore, the second argument made by the appellant seems tenuous even if we look into the intent of the parties entering into the contract, as it has not come on record that there was any water body near the coal yard or the factory premises. In such a scenario, where there was no risk of water from a water body overflowing onto the dry land where the coal yard was located, it could not have been the intention of the parties entering into the contract to give a restrictive meaning to the term "flood". Such a narrow interpretation would lead to the conclusion that the insertion of the term "flood" was superfluous, which could not have been the case.
13. In the instant case, the appellant has not disputed that there were heavy rains on 29-8-2003 and 30-8-2003 in the Nimbahera region. In fact, the surveyor appointed by the appellant had also observed in its report that heavy rainfall had occurred in the area, causing flood-like conditions that resulted in some of the coal kept in the insured premises being washed off. Moreover, the surveyor's report also stated that there was accumulation of water due to the heavy rains, that had caused the coal to get washed off.
14.NCDRC in the following cases :
(i) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Gondamal Hardyal Mal [Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gondamal Hardyal Mal, 2009 SCC OnLine NCDRC 128 : 2009 NCDRC 127] , (ii) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sathyanarayana Setty [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sathyanarayana Setty, 2012 SCC OnLine NCDRC 124 : 2012 NCDRC 124] , and (iii) Oriental Insurance Co.
M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd.
Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 25 of 34 )
RAJESH Digitally
by RAJESH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2026.04.25
GOEL 11:13:26 +0530
Ltd. v. R.P. Bricks [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R.P. Bricks, 2013 SCC OnLine NCDRC 496 : 2013 NCDRC 494], had held that damage caused by heavy rainfall would not fall beyond the "flood and inundation"
clause of the standard fire and special perils insurance policies. It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the aforesaid view has been consistently taken by NCDRC. The aforementioned view of NCDRC supports the impugned judgment and the same cannot be said to be erroneous.
42. In another case of "Gopal Dikshit v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1161"
Hon'ble Supreme Court overturned NCDRC's dismissal of an insurance claim where the insured building suffered heavy water damage in the basement following an intense rainfall; the insurer had repudiated the claim, citing seepage water damage, which was excluded under the policy, and the NCDRC had upheld the repudiation, relying on a delayed second survey report; the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that the first survey report, conducted promptly after the event, clearly attributed damage to flooding caused by heavy rains entering through the flooring; certificates from independent structural engineers supported this finding, concluding the M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd.
Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 26 of 34 )
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2026.04.25
GOEL 11:13:30 +0530
basement was flooded, not gradually seeping; the Hon'ble Court found the later survey report alleging damage due to seepage water to be unsupported and arbitrary and emphasizing the objective evidence, the Court held the cause of damage was flooding from heavy rainfall, a covered peril, and not excluded seepage.
43. Reverting back to the case at hand, it has come on the record that there was overflow of water; it has been observed by the Surveyor as reported in his report Ex.DW1/1 that water was oozing out at places of the godown (north side) and draining towards east side; as per the said report, it was observed that 6" to 12" water was accumulated at water affected part of the godown/ premises; it is nowhere the case of the defendant company that no part of the stock lying in the said godown got affected rather, in the report Ex.DW1/1, the Surveyor has considered the claim on the basis of the products/ items which were damaged not in the same quantity as claimed by the plaintiff company but on lower side. Meaning thereby, certain part of the stock lying in the godown was damaged due to overflow of the M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd.
Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 27 of 34 )
RAJESH Digitally
by RAJESH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2026.04.25
GOEL 11:13:35 +0530
water in the godown and the level of the water which was accumulated was around 6" to 12".
44. Moreover, the cause of loss in the report Ex.DW1/1, was reported as "based on the information gathered during survey that heavy rains were experienced in and around Hyderabad city incl. Bowenpally & its surroundings on 8th and 9th Oct, 2022 which resulted in seepage water entering into the insured's cellar premises during sometime between night hours of 8th Oct. 2022 and morning hours of 10th Oct. 2022 leading to overflowing of sump/pit provided in the cellar affecting various stocks of LED lights of different specifications and appliances like water heaters, ceiling fans, geysers etc., stored in the water affected area of the cellar premises and the same was noticed on 10.10.2022".
45. The said report of the Surveyor Ex.DW1/1 speaks in volume to the effect that there was heavy rains during the relevant times which led to overflowing of sump/pit provided in the premises and the electrical goods/ items were got affected which were lying in water affected area of premises.
M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd.
Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 28 of 34 )
RAJESH Digitally
by RAJESH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2026.04.25
GOEL 11:13:40 +0530
46. During the arguments, one of the contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant company was that had there been flooding in the godown, the entire stock could have been damaged, which is not there in the present case. In my opinion, the aforesaid contention being devoid of merits, is liable to be rejected. Even as per the report of the Surveyor Ex.DW1/1, water was oozing out at places of the godown on the North side and it was draining towards East side. Even the Surveyor, did not observe any water marks towards South side and the stocks lying in that area was not affected. It is also mentioned that only the bottom layers of the stocks that too only in part of the godown, were affected. Moreover, during the cross examination, PW1 Anuj Sharma also explained the same while stating that the products are kept in layers or in the formation of staging therefore, the products which were on lower side, got affected. In these circumstances, there was no reason that the entire stock lying in the godown would have been affected or damaged.
47. From the aforesaid discussion, it flows that overflow of water in the godown due to heavy rain M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd.
Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 29 of 34 )
RAJESH Digitally
by RAJESH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2026.04.25
GOEL 11:13:44 +0530
resulted in the state of inundation. It is also nowhere the case of the defendant company that the plaintiff company was negligent and the electrical items were not properly stocked in the godown and the only contention raised was that overflowing of water in the godown due to excessive rainfall, can neither be treated as flood nor inundation, which in my opinion lack merit.
48. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) and Gopal Dikshit (supra), are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The case laws as relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff company also lean in favour of the claim of plaintiff company. Consequently, the damage caused to the plaintiff company because of overflow of water in the godown due to heavy rain even entering through flooring, would come within the purview of the policy in question Ex.PW1/B. The judgment as relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant company is not applicable being distinguishable on facts. Thus, the first question/ contention is decided in favour of the M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd. Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 30 of 34 ) Digitally signed RAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.04.25 11:13:49 +0530 plaintiff company and against the defendant company.
b) If so, what is the extent of the actual loss sustained by the plaintiff company?
49. In the first report Ex.DW1/1, the Surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs.6,31,759/-. It was stated that the plaintiff company did not provide the requisite record/ document for verification so the Surveyor reached at the aforesaid amount on the basis of the material provided by the plaintiff company. Later on, after submission of the said Surveyor report, further documents were shared with the Surveyor and consequently, the Surveyor gave the addendum report Ex.DW1/2, wherein the loss was assessed at Rs.13,74,263/-.
50. The plaintiff company has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.20,46,478/- and has also claimed the interest @ 18% p.a. on the aforesaid amount. During the arguments, in reply to the query raised by this court as to how and on what basis the plaintiff company has assessed the loss at M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd. Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 31 of 34 ) Digitally signed RAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.04.25 11:13:55 +0530 Rs.20,46,478/-, it was stated on behalf of the plaintiff company that the plaintiff company is confining its claim to the extent of Rs.13,74,263/- only i.e. the loss as assessed by the Surveyor in his addendum report Ex.DW1/2. In this regard, the statement of the AR of the plaintiff company namely Anuj Sharma was recorded separately.
51. The defendant company has not disputed the assessment of loss as made by the Surveyor in the report Ex.DW1/2. The plaintiff company has confined its claim to that extent only. Thus, the plaintiff company shall be entitled to recover an amount of Rs.13,74,263/- from the defendant company. Hence, the question/ contention as above and the Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.2.
In case the issue no.1 is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest ? If so, at what rate and for what period ?. (OPP)
52. The plaintiff company has claimed the pendent elite and future interest @ 18% p. a. but it has not been explained as to on what basis said rate M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd.
Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 32 of 34 )
RAJESH Digitally
by RAJESH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2026.04.25
GOEL 11:14:00 +0530
of interest has been claimed. It is an admitted fact that the insurance policy Ex.PW1/B is silent about the rate of interest to be claimed by the plaintiff company from the defendant company.
53. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that the defendant company was under obligation to honour the loss suffered by the plaintiff company and the reason given for the same tested on the touch stone of the settled proposition of law, could not stand before this court. So, the plaintiff company cannot be denied of the interest at least for the period for which it has been claimed.
54. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice would be met by awarding pendente lite and future interest @ 8% per annum, so is ordered accordingly. Issue No.2 stands answered accordingly.
Issue No.3 : Relief
55. In view of my aforesaid discussion, the Court is of the view that the plaintiff company has been M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd.
Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 33 of 34 )
Digitally signed by
RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR
KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2026.04.25
GOEL 11:14:05 +0530
able to prove its case against the defendant company. Thus, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff company and against the defendant company and following reliefs are granted:-
(i.) The plaintiff company is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.13,74,263/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Seventy Four Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Three only) from the defendant company.
(ii.) The plaintiff company is also awarded the pendent elite and future interest @ 8% per annum.
(iii.) Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff company.
56. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
57. File be consigned to Record Room, after due RAJESH Digitally signed by compliance. KUMAR RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Date: 2026.04.25 GOEL 11:14:10 +0530 (Rajesh Kumar Goel) District Judge (Commercial)-02 Central, Tis Hazari Courts 24.04.2026 Announced in the Open Court today i.e: 24.04.2026 (digitally signed on 25.04.2026) M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company India Ltd. Date of Judgment: 24.04.2026 (Page 34 of 34 )