UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus M/S HYUNDAI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. & ORS.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 355, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
* Author
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 355 : 2024 INSC 431
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 
v. 
M/s Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 1496 of 2023)
16 May 2024
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Aravind Kumar, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the correctness of the decision by the National 
Commission which directed the appellant-insurer to release and pay 
an insurance claim to the respondent-contractor for the collapse 
of the bridge.
Headnotes†
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Insurance Contract – 
Exclusion clause – Interpretation – Payment of insurance 
claim – Contract for design, construction and management 
of a bridge awarded to the respondent and another 
company – Issuance of contractor’s all risk insurance policy 
for the project by the appellant-insurer – However, during 
the construction, part of the bridge collapsed resulting in 
fatalities – Investigation report holding the respondents liable 
due to defects in the design, construction and supervision – 
Report submitted by Surveyor as also the Committee of 
Experts – Respondents made a insurance claim, however the 
appellant repudiated the same – Meanwhile the respondents 
completed the work under the contract and the bridge was 
put to public use – Almost after 2 years of the rejection of the 
claim, the respondents filed a consumer complaint alleging 
deficiency in the appellant’s service – National Commission 
allowed the same, directing the appellant to pay the insurance
claim – Correctness:
Held: Insurance is a contract of indemnification, being a contract 
for a specific purpose, which is to cover defined losses – Courts 
have to read the insurance contract strictly – Essentially, the insurer 
cannot be asked to cover a loss that is not mentioned – Exclusion 
clauses in insurance contracts are interpreted strictly and against 
the insurer as they have the effect of completely exempting the 
insurer of its liabilities – Appellants-insurer discharged the burden –
356
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
There was sufficient evidence to justify repudiation of the claim 
on the basis of the exclusion clause – Reliance on the findings 
of the Expert Committee justified – It was found from the Expert 
Committee’s report that combination of factors such as lack of 
stability and robustness in the structure, shortfall in design, lack 
of quality workmanship all contributed to the collapse – On the 
other hand, there was absolutely no evidence on behalf of the 
respondents – Surveyor was examined and his evidence remained 
unrebutted – Reports of independent experts relied on by the 
respondents were not based on site inspection but were theoretical 
in nature – Furthermore, continuation of work by respondents could 
be due to various reasons – Even if the NHAI’s decision to continue 
is taken to be a valid economic decision, that by itself cannot be 
a reason for not applying the applicable clause of the contract if 
such applicability is otherwise proved by cogent evidence – Thus, 
the NCDRC erred in allowing the consumer complaint – Impugned 
order passed by the NCDRC set aside. [Paras 16, 18, 20.3, 21, 
23, 26, 28-30]
Case Law Cited
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sony Cheriyan [1999] 
Supp. 1 SCR 622 : (1999) 6 SCC 451; United India 
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Levis Strauss (India) (P) Ltd. 
[2022] 10 SCR 231 : (2022) 6 SCC 1; New India 
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajeshwar Sharma [2018] 14 
SCR 1181 : (2019) 2 SCC 671; Canara Bank v.
United 
India Insurance Co. Ltd. [2020] 7 SCR 498 : (2020) 3 
SCC 455; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Samayanallur 
Primary Agricultural Coop. Bank [1999] Supp. 4 SCR 
329 : (1999) 8 SCC 543; Texco Marketing P. Ltd. v. TATA 
AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. [2022] 9 SCR 
1031 : (2023) 1 SCC 428; National Insurance Company 
Ltd. v. Vedic Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. [2023] 7 SCR 
419 : (2023) SCC OnLine SC 648; National Insurance 
Co. Ltd. v. Ishar Das Madan Lal [2007] 2 SCR 1014 : 
(2007) 4 SCC 105; National Insurance Company Ltd. 
v. Hareshwar Enterprises (P) Ltd. [2021] 8 SCR 895 : 
(2021) SCC Online SC 628 – referred to.
List of Acts
Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Penal Code, 1860.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
357
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.  
M/s Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. & Ors.
List of Keywords
Consumer Complaint; Release and pay insurance claim; 
Contractor’s all risk insurance policy; Investigation report; Surveyor 
report; Committee of Experts report; Repudiation of insurance 
claim; Deficiency in service; Insurance, contract of indemnification; 
Exclusion clauses in insurance contracts; Discharge the burden.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1496 of 2023
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.01.2023 of the National 
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in C.C. No. 
160 of 2019
Appearances for Parties
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Niraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Advs., Amit Kumar 
Singh, Ms. K Enatoli Sema, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, 
Advs. for the Appellant.
Dama Sheshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv., Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawala, 
Ankur Saigal, Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Ms. Anwesha Padhi, Himanshu 
Saraswat, E. C. Agrawala, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
1.	
The appellant, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., an insurance company, 
challenges the decision by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal 
Commission (hereinafter ‘the NCDRC’), which by its impugned order 
dated 16.01.2023 allowed the Consumer Complaint No.160 of 2019 
and directed the appellant to release and pay an insurance claim of 
Rs. 39,09,92,828/-. 
2.	
Facts: The
National Highway Authority of India (‘NHAI’), respondent 
no. 3 herein, awarded a contract for the design, construction and 
maintenance of a cable-stayed bridge across the river Chambal on 
NH-76 at Kota, Rajasthan to a joint venture company comprising 
of respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2. The value of the project 
under the contract was Rs. 213,58,76,000/-. The contract provided 
that the construction work was to be completed within 40 months
358
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
and the joint venture was thereafter assigned the task of maintaining 
the said bridge for a period of 6 years, of which, 2 years was the 
‘defect-notification period’. NHAI also assigned consultancy services 
for design, construction and maintenance of the bridge to another 
joint venture of M/s Louis Berger Group Inc. (USA) and M/s COWI 
A/S (Denmark).
3.	
The appellant issued a Contractor’s All Risk Insurance Policy covering 
the interest of NHAI as principal, and M/s Hyundai Engineering 
Infrastructure Co. Ltd. along with M/s Gammon India as JV Contractor 
under the policy bearing No. 011900/44/07/03/60000001 for the 
period from 05.12.2007 to 04.12.2011 for a total amount of Rs. 
213,58,76,000/-. The relevant clauses of the policy are extracted 
as follows:
“SECTION I - MATERIAL DAMAGE: 
1. The Company hereby agrees with the Insured (subject 
to the exclusions and conditions contained herein or 
endorsed hereon) that if, at anytime during the period of 
insurance stated in the Schedule, or during any further 
period of extension thereof the property (except packing 
materials of any kind) or any part thereof described in the 
Schedule be lost, damaged or destroyed by any cause, 
other than those specifically excluded hereunder, in a 
manner necessitating replacement or repair, the Company 
will pay or make good all such loss or damage upto an 
amount not exceeding in respect of each of the items 
specified in the
Schedule the sum set opposite thereto 
and not exceeding in the whole the total Sum Insured 
hereby.
The Company will also reimburse the Insured for the cost of 
clearance and removal of debris following upon any event 
giving rise to an admissible claim under this Policy but not 
exceeding in all the sum (if any) set opposite thereto in 
the Schedule. The term debris only of the Insured property 
and the cost of clearance and removal of debris pertaining 
to property not Insured by the policy will not be payable.” 
“EXCLUSIONS TO SECTION - I 
The Company, shall not, however, be liable for;
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
359
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.  
M/s Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. & Ors.
a)	
the first amount of the loss arising out of each and 
every occurrence shown as Excess in the Schedule;
b)	
loss discovered only at the time of taking an inventory; 
c)	
normal wear and tear, gradual deterioration due to 
atmospheric conditions or lack of use or obsolescence 
or otherwise, rust, scratching of painted or polished 
surfaces or breakage of glass; 
d)	
loss by damage due to faulty design; 
e)	
the cost of replacement, repair or rectification of 
defective material and/or workmanship, but this 
exclusion shall be limited to the items immediately 
affected and shall not be deemed to exclude loss of 
or damage to correctly executed items resulting from 
an accident due to such defective material and/ or 
workmanship;
f)	
the cost necessary for rectification or correction of any 
error during construction unless resulting in physical 
loss or damage 
g)	
loss of or damage to files, drawings, accounts, bills, 
currency, stamps, deeds, evidence of debt, notes, 
securities, cheques, packing materials such as cases, 
boxes, crates; 
h)	
any damage or penalties on account of the 
Insured’s non-fulfilment of the terms of delivery or 
completion under this Contract of construction or 
of any obligations assumed thereunder or lack of 
performance including consequential loss of any 
kind or description or for any aesthetic defects or 
operational
deficiencies; 
i)	
loss of or damage to vehicles licensed for general road 
use or waterborne vessels or machinery/equipment 
mounted or operated or fixed on floating vessels/
craft/barges or aircraft.”
4.	
The construction project commenced in December, 2007. While the 
construction was in progress, a part of the constructed bridge collapsed 
on 24.12.2009, resulting in the death of 48 workmen. On 26.12.2009,
360
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India 
constituted a Committee of Experts (hereinafter, ‘Expert Committee’) 
under the chairmanship of the Director General (Road Development) 
and Special Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. 
The task of this committee was to investigate and report the cause 
of the collapse. An FIR was also lodged against the respondents for 
offences under Sections 304/308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
After investigation, a final report dated 19.03.2010 was filed wherein 
the officials of the respondent companies were charged under the 
said provisions. It was found that they were liable for the loss of 
48 lives due to several defects at the stage of design, construction 
and supervision. 
5.	
The NHAI intimated the appellant about the incident on 29.12.2009 
and requested the deputation of a surveyor to assess the damage 
caused due to the accident and also sought indemnification of the 
loss. A surveyor was appointed. He commenced his work and by a 
letter dated 06.01.2010, he called for certain details and clarifications 
from the respondents. While furnishing the details, the respondents 
made a claim of Rs. 151,59,94,542/-.
6.	
The Committee of Experts constituted by the Government of India 
submitted its report on 07.08.2010. Relevant parts of some of the 
important findings of the Committee are as follows:
“8.2.2 Views of the Committee
8.2.2.1 The
majority of failures in structures occur during 
construction stages when they are most vulnerable. The 
Chambal Bridge Accident was a sudden and catastrophic 
structural failure. It may be pointed out that the bridge was 
at one of its critical stages at the time of the accident. […]
8.2.2.2 […] At this stage, as noted in para 5.8, the 
stabilizing moment would become less than the 
overturning moment. Uncontrolled rotation of the pylon 
about the base would take place which would result in 
its gaining momentum as it fell. This is borne out by 
the fact that the catastrophic failure involved a catapult 
action wherein the span P3-P4 as a whole, (which was 
tied together by prestressing cables) was thrown some 
100 m away.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
361
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.  
M/s Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. & Ors.
8.2.2.3 The serious distress in span P3-P4 referred to para 
8.2.2.2 could have been caused by shortfall in design, poor 
workmanship, unexpected load, sub-standard material 
or distress in foundation P4 or a combination of some of 
these. […]
8.2.2.4 It can be seen that had there been additional stability 
devices in place (such as those mentioned in para 8.2.2.1) 
the cycle involving progressive loss of rotational restrain 
at the base of the pylon and accentuation of distress in 
P3-P4 might not have been initiated and the collapse might 
not have occurred.”
7.	
The final conclusions of the committee are relevant for this case, 
and are as follows:
“CONCLUSIONS
9.1 From all the information made available by the various 
agencies as also the analysis and evaluation made by 
the Committee, it is felt that a combination of factors 
such as lack of stability and robustness in the partially 
completed structure, shortfalls in design and lack of 
quality of workmanship in the construction of span P3-
P4 have contributed to the collapse of this bridge. The 
trigger for initiation of the collapse appears to have been 
unpredictable and sudden additional loading due to failure 
of supporting arrangement of the form traveller.”
9.2 Since this is a design-build “Turnkey Contract” which 
covers planning, investigation, design, construction and 
maintenance of the cable
stayed bridge, the primary 
responsibility for the collapse lies with the Contractor, M/s 
Hyundai — Gammon (JV). The Contractors are responsible 
for allowing the structure to reach a vulnerable stage without 
taking adequate precautions with respect to stability and 
robustness of the partially completed structure and the short 
fall in the design. They are also responsible for deficiency 
in workmanship in the construction of span P3-P4.
9.3 The design for this bridge was prepared by M/s 
SYSTRA, the Design Consultants of the Contractor M/s 
Hyundai-Gammon (JV). Since there have been shortfalls
362
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
in design, the responsibility for the same also lies with 
M/s SYSTRA.
9.4 The Supervision Consultants for this Project are M/s 
LBG-COWI whose duties include construction supervision 
along with the proof-checking of the design through M/s 
COWI While carrying out the proof-checking work M/s 
COWI have not highlighted the shortfalls in the design 
which have been observed subsequently by the Committee. 
Further, the Supervision Consultants have not been 
sufficiently proactive in preventing lapses in workmanship. 
They have also given tacit approval for major changes 
during construction without insisting on a proper review 
of the design by the Contractors / Design Consultants. 
As such, the Supervision Consultants are responsible for 
these lapses.
9.5 M/s Freyssinet acted as specialist Agency to M/s 
Hyundai for supply, installation and operation of the form 
traveller equipment for cantilever construction, post - 
tensioning work and installation of stay cables. Since the 
trigger for the collapse appears to be the failure of the 
Freyssibar and / or the supporting arrangement for the 
form traveller, the extent of their responsibility may be 
examined keeping in view the Contract Agreement between 
the concerned agencies.
9.6 Apportioning of extent of responsibility to the various 
agencies for the collapse of the structure could be 
examined further by the Employer (NHAI) keeping in view 
the contracts for this
Project entered into between various 
agencies with each other and with NHAI.”
8.	
On 06.12.2010, NHAI issued a show-cause notice to the respondent 
nos. 1 and 2 calling upon them to justify as to why they should not 
be debarred. The respondents replied to the show cause notice, and 
after perusing the reply, the NHAI took a decision to permit them to 
carry out the remaining part of the contract.
9.	
In the meanwhile, the surveyor appointed by the appellant submitted 
its final report on 28.02.2011. While assessing the net loss at Rs. 
39,09,92,828/-, the surveyor recommended to the appellant that the
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
363
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.  
M/s Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. & Ors.
insurance claim must be rejected as the respondents no. 1 and 2 
had violated the conditions of the insurance policy. Based on the 
surveyor’s report and also the findings and conclusions of the Expert 
Committee, the appellant repudiated the insurance claim in its letter 
dated 21.04.2011.
10.	 By their letter dated 17.06.2011, respondents nos. 1 and 2 requested 
the appellants to reconsider the decision of repudiation. In support 
of their contentions, the respondents relied on certain independent 
reports submitted by i) Mr. Jacques Combault; ii) M/s SETRA/CETE 
(French Ministry of Transportation Technical Department); iii) M/s 
Halcrow Group Ltd. and iv) AECOM Asia Co. Ltd. Relying on these 
reports, the respondents urged stated that there is no fault in the 
design of the bridge, and this is clearly reiterated by technical experts, 
who are specialists in the field. 
11.	 As the appellant agreed to reconsider the repudiation, respondents no. 
1 and 2 submitted various documents in support of their claim. The 
appellant re-considered the claim, and by a letter dated 17.04.2017 
informed the respondents that the original decision of repudiation 
is affirmed as they did not find any justifiable reason for accepting 
the claim. The relevant portion of the said communication dated 
17.04.2017 is as follows:
“We refer to your letter Ref: 17011/27/2006-kota/CAR/
RJ-05/3909, dt: 18.01.2017 and Contractor letter Ref: 
HZ-6718, dt: 04.02.2017 and also the subsequent meeting 
held at our office-Chennai. On perusal of the documents 
provided, we find that no further points have emerged in 
support of the claim.
In view of the above we regret our inability to reconsider 
the claim which was repudiated.”
12.	 In the meanwhile, respondents no. 1 and 2 completed the work under 
the contract by 31.07.2017. The bridge was inaugurated and put to 
public use from 29.08.2017, and it is said to be operating since then. 
13.	 Almost after 2 years of the rejection of the claim, on 24.01.2019, 
respondents no. 1 and 2 filed a Consumer Complaint No. 160 of 
2019 before the NCDRC alleging deficiency in the appellant’s service 
and unfair trade practice adopted by it.
364
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
14.	 Decision of the NCDRC: At the outset, the NCDRC rejected the 
preliminary objection of the appellant that the summary jurisdiction 
under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter, ‘the CPA’) is 
not appropriate for dealing with complicated questions of law and 
fact. The objection relating to limitation in filing the complaint was 
also dismissed by holding that the period for calculating the limitation 
would commence from 17.04.2017 and not from 21.04.2011. 
14.1	On merits of the matter, the NCDRC held that the report of the 
Committee of Experts was inconclusive as it could not identify 
the precise reasons for the collapse of the bridge. On the 
other hand, the NCDRC placed reliance on the reports of i) Mr. 
Jacques Combault, ii) the Halcrow Group, iii) SETRA and iv) 
AECOM Asia Co. Ltd., and came to the conclusion that there 
is no defect in the design of the bridge and that the respondent 
nos. 1 and 2 are not at fault. 
14.2	Finally, the NCDRC relied on the decision of the NHAI permitting 
the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to proceed with the construction of 
the remaining part of the bridge and held that if the NHAI found 
the respondents to be competent enough to continue with the 
contract, it can safely be concluded that they were not at fault. 
14.3	In this view of the matter, the NCDRC directed the appellant to 
pay the respondents no. 1 and 2 a sum of Rs. 39,09,92,828/- 
with an interest at 9% p.a. from
the first date of repudiation, 
i.e., 21.04.2011. 
14.4	Strangely, while the judgment of the NCDRC was pronounced on 
16.01.2023, an addendum came to be added to the judgment. 
This addendum is undated and seeks to amend paragraphs 
28 and 29 and directs payment of Rs. 151,59,94,542/- instead 
of Rs. 39,09,92,828/-. The relevant portion of the addendum 
is extracted here for ready reference: 
“32. It will be relevant to mention here that though the 
Complainant No.1, vide letter dated 27.02.2010 had 
submitted a detailed Claim Statement of ₹93,67,17,876 
to the Surveyor but it was revised vide e-mail dated 
07.03.2010 to the tune of ₹149,87,44,914/-. It was 
again revised vide letter dated 24.06.2010 (Serial 
No.2 of the Claim Statement - ₹8,29,15,604 to
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
365
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.  
M/s Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. & Ors.
₹10,01,65,232) to a final Claim of ₹151,59,94,542/- . 
The Surveyor had, however, assessed the total 
loss at ₹39,09,92,828/- . Even though in the Written 
Submissions filed by the Learned Counsel for the 
Complainants they have claimed that at least a 
net loss of ₹39,09,92,828/- be payable towards the 
insurance claim but in my considered opinion the 
Complainants are entitled for the payment of entire 
loss of ₹151,59,94,542/- claimed by them. 
33. Consequently, the Complaint is partly allowed with 
a direction to the Insurance Company to pay a sum 
of ₹151,59,94,542/- to the Complainants along with 
interest @9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the 
claim i.e. 21.04.2011 till the actual realization, within 
a period of 8 weeks from the date of passing of the 
order failing which the amount shall attract interest 
@12% p.a. for the said period. The Complainants 
shall also be entitled for a costs of ₹50,000/-.”
15.	 Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, learned senior counsel appearing for the 
respondents has submitted that he is not in a position to support 
the judgment amending the paragraphs 28 and 29 and directing 
the payment of the revised amount of Rs. 151,59,94,542/-. It is 
unimaginable as to how the NCDRC could unilaterally revise the 
claim from Rs. 39,09,92,828/- to Rs. 151,59,94,542/-, without hearing 
the parties and more surprisingly when respondent
nos. 1 and 2 
have themselves filed written submissions confining the claim to Rs. 
39,09,92,828/-. Be that as it may, in view of the submission of the 
learned counsel for the respondent that he will confine the claim Rs. 
39,09,92,828/-, this issue need not detain us any further. 
16.	 Analysis: Insurance is a contract of indemnification, being a contract 
for a specific purpose1, which is to cover defined losses2. The courts 
have to read the insurance contract strictly. Essentially, the insurer 
cannot be asked to cover a loss that is not mentioned. Exclusion 
clauses in insurance contracts are interpreted strictly and against the 
1	
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sony Cheriyan (1999) 6 SCC 451
2	
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Levis Strauss (India) (P) Ltd. (2022) 6 SCC 1
366
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
insurer as they have the effect of completely exempting the insurer 
of its liabilities.3 
17.	 In Texco Marketing P. Ltd. v. TATA AIG General Insurance Company 
Ltd.,4 while dealing with an exclusion clause, this Court has held that 
the burden of proving the applicability of an exclusionary clause lies 
on the insurer. At the same time, it was stated that such a clause 
cannot be interpreted so that it conflicts with the main intention of 
the insurance. It is, therefore, the duty of the insurer to plead and 
lead cogent evidence to establish the application of such a clause5. 
The evidence must unequivocally establish that the event sought to 
be excluded is specifically covered by the exclusionary clause.6 The 
judicial positions on the nature of an insurance contract, and how 
an exclusion clause is to be proved, shall anchor our reasoning in 
the following paragraphs.
18.	 Seeking to justify their repudiation, the appellant relied on the affidavit 
of evidence by Mr. S. Anantha Padmanabhan, examined as RW 2. 
He produced the surveyor’s report as well as the Expert Committee’s 
report as Ex. RW 2/2. On the other hand, the reports of the independent 
experts relied upon by the respondents no. 1 and 2 were not marked 
as exhibits. They were not adduced in evidence as none of these 
experts was examined as a witness. Under these circumstances, we 
have no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the appellants have
discharged the burden as enunciated in Texco (supra).
19.	 The Expert Committee was constituted by the Ministry of Road 
Transport and Highways (‘MORTH’), Government of India. It was 
chaired by the Director General (Road Development) and Special 
Secretary, MORTH. The other members of the Committee were Mr. 
Ninan Koshi DG (RD) & AS (Retd.), Prof. Mahesh Tandon, Bridge 
Specialist, and Prof. A.K. Nagpal, Dept. of Civil Engineering, IIT 
Delhi. We have referred to the constitution as well as the expertise 
of the Committee only to assure ourselves that it comprised of 
3	
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajeshwar Sharma (2019) 2 SCC 671; Canara Bank v. United India 
Insurance Co. Ltd. (2020) 3 SCC 455;

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Samayanallur Primary Agricultural Coop. Bank (1999) 8 SCC 543
4	
[2022] 9 SCR 1031 : (2023) 1 SCC 428
5	
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Vedic Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 648
6	
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ishar Das Madan Lal, 2007 (4) SCC 105
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
367
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.  
M/s Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. & Ors.
experts in the field of civil engineering. It is also indicative of the fact 
that the members were independent and well-qualified to examine 
and submit a report. We would, therefore, be justified in relying on 
the findings of the Expert Committee. In fact, the NCDRC’s opinion 
about the Expert Committee is not about lack of credibility, or lack 
of expertise, rather its opinion was only that the Committee was not 
conclusive in its findings. 
20.	 The proof of the pudding is in its eating - we will straight away refer 
to the relevant portions of the Expert Committee’s report. Referring to 
the variations introduced on-site without any approval by the design 
checker, the Committee held as follows:
“5.1.2 Since this is a Design Build Contract, the Contractors 
M/s Hyundai-Gammon (JV) had appointed M/s SYSTRA of 
France as their Design Consultant. The designs prepared 
by M/s SYSTRA were proof checked by M/s COWI, the 
Proof Check Consultant. During the course of presentations 
and discussions with various agencies, there were some 
contradictions in the stand taken by M/s SYSTRA and M/s 
COWI as regards the extent of proof checking of designs 
by the Proof Check Consultant. In fact, M/s COWI in 
their submission dated 28th May, 2010 (Annexure L-21) 
have stated as follows: “The Design Checker verified the 
Final Design prior to start of construction. The
variations 
introduced on site were introduced by the BOT Contractor. 
We expect that all variations were subject to verification 
and approval of the Designer. The Design Checker was 
not requested to review any design verification following 
variations on site from the Final Design. […]” 
(emphasis supplied)
20.1	The Committee noted that each lateral span of the bridge was 
supposed to be a monolithic structure. A lateral span is the 
structure between two support pillars. However, the collapsed 
lateral span was cast in multiple parts, as noted in the following 
paragraph:
“5.3.3 M/s SYSTRA have expressed vide their 
submission dated 17th April, 2010 (Annexure 
H-11, page 3) that they have envisaged “one go”
368
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(i.e. monolithic construction) for each lateral span 
during the development of the design. However, 
during actual construction the lateral span P3-P4 
was cast in seven parts. The lower part of the box 
girder (U-shaped section comprising bottom slab and 
webs upto about mid height) was concreted in four 
different stages with three vertical construction joints. 
The upper part of the box girder (comprising deck 
slab and top half of the webs) was later concreted 
in three stages (with two vertical construction joints). 
It has been informed by M/s Hyundai-Gammon JV 
vide their letter HN-1656 dated 1st September, 
2009 (Annexure L-18, page 3) that M/s SYSTRA, 
the designer of the main bridge including lateral 
spans, were aware of this. In fact, Mr. J. Mirailles 
of M/s SYSTRA had visited the site in the month of 
July 2009 and stayed there for a couple of weeks to 
inspect the ongoing construction. The construction 
of lateral span P3- P4 in parts was being carried 
out at that time…”
“5.3.5 The query of the Committee regarding 
position of M/s LBG-COWI in respect of applicability 
of Clauses of AASHTO relating to “Segmentally 
Constructed Bridges” to the design of lateral span 
P3-P4, was discussed with Mr. Nielsen of M/s COWI 
on 23rd June, 2010. Mr. Nielsen mentioned that as 
per his understanding, it was a case of segmental 
construction. […]” 
(emphasis supplied)
20.2	The Committee noted that the point at which the
cable was 
going to be suspended with the pylon was crucial. It observed 
that the height at which the suspension took place was 77 
metres, whereas, it was supposed to be 40 metres. The relevant 
paragraph is as follows:
“6.2 The drawing No.A104-DWG-MB-FD-1301 
REV. 1 dated 28th May, 2009 [Annexure H-01(ii)] 
shows that the lateral spans P3-P4 as well as
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
369
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.  
M/s Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. & Ors.
P2-P3, should have been completed and external 
tendons tensioned before the first stay cable was 
installed. The steel box for anchoring the first stay 
cable was to be placed in the pylon at the height of 
33.30m. Also, the first cantilever segment towards 
the river side from P4 was to be constructed only 
after the lateral spans P3-P4 and P2-P3 had been 
completed and fully prestressed. It is seen that this 
sequence was changed in the actual construction. 
Further, drawing No.A104-DWG-MB-FD-846 REV. 
2(c) dated (??)/07/09 [Annexure H-01(ii)] specifically 
mentions that “tendons tensioning on span P2-P3 
must be performed before pouring segment S10”. 
This requirement was also changed during actual 
construction. […] 
6.3…This implies that the height of the pylon should 
have been about 40 m at the time of tensioning of 
first stay cable at cantilever segment S10. However, 
it is seen that at the time of casting of segment S10, 
the free-standing pylon had already been constructed 
to a height of 77 m.” 
(emphasis supplied)
20.3	The other relevant portions cited to us from the Committee’s 
Report include para 6.5, which speaks about the changes in 
the sequence of construction without consulting or informing 
the design consultants of the project. Para 6.8 was relied 
on to highlight further discrepancies between the approved 
drawing plans and the actual
construction. Concrete batching 
plants involved were of a lower capacity, leading to delays in 
construction of the lateral spans. Para 8.1.2 (iii) was also brought 
to our notice, as it spoke about the changes which were brought 
about without a proper technical review. The conclusions of 
the committee have already been quoted by us in paragraph 
7 above, and it was found that: 
a)	
a combination of factors such as lack of stability and 
robustness in the structure, shortfall in design, lack of 
quality workmanship have all contributed to the collapse;
370
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
b)	
the primary responsibility lies with the contractor, M/s 
Hyundai and Gammon (JV) who are responsible for 
allowing the structure to reach a vulnerable stage without 
taking adequate precautions and there is a shortfall in 
the design;
c)	
there were shortcomings in the design for the bridge 
prepared by M/s SYSTRA and the responsibility for the 
design lies with M/s SYSTRA;
d)	
M/S COWI, the supervision consultants have not 
highlighted the shortfall in the design. M/s COWI has 
not been sufficiently proactive in preventing lapses in 
workmanship. They have given tacit approvals for major 
changes without insisting on a proper review of the design;
e)	
The trigger for the collapse appears to be the failure of 
M/s Freyssinet. Their responsibility must be examined 
in detail. 
21.	 We are inclined to accept the appellant’s submission that there is 
sufficient evidence to justify repudiation of the claim on the basis 
of the exclusion clause. On the other hand, there is absolutely no 
evidence on behalf of the respondents. His argument is only that 
the Surveyor/Committee report is not clinching, it is open ended and 
does not hold that the respondents no. 1 and 2 are responsible for 
the negligence. 
22.	 We will now refer to the surveyor’s report, the findings of which are 
as follows: 
“C) After a detailed study of the Insured’s submission vide 
their letter dt; 27.02.2010 and several rounds of face to 
face
interactions with the Insured’s Engineers at site, we 
derived the following inferences; 
1).	
The junction at Pylon P4, was the most critical and 
vulnerable in the entire construction and had to be 
handled with due care and diligence. 
2).	
It was clear and obvious, that, an unstable equilibrium 
has been created at this junction, (where, the over 
turning moment was in excess of resisting moment), 
due to the shearing of the slab in lateral span P3
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
371
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.  
M/s Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. & Ors.
-P4 at about 15 mts from the P4 junction, which has 
caused the tilting of the Pylon, dragging with it, spans 
P3-P4, P3-P2 and Piers P4, P3. The shearing of the 
slab is purely a Design aspect. 
3).	
The restraints imposed on the movement of the 
Bearings at P4 were released by the Insured prior 
to completion of the main spans, which facilitated 
movement of Pylon along with Lateral spans and this 
is one of the most significant factors, contributing to 
this massive failure. 
4).	
The sequence of operations in the construction of the 
Bridge were changed in actual construction to make 
up for the time lost and this has adversely affected 
the stability of the P4 joint. 
5).	
Raising Pylon P4 to an abnormal height of 77 mts (out 
of 80 mts) without any lateral anchorage in the form 
of stringers, had left the Pylon P4 exposed to heavy 
wind pressure and in a state of unstable equilibrium, 
ready to collapse at any time, with the application of 
a little external force in excess. 
6).	
We were informed that, the concreting of Lateral 
span P3-P4 was done in 7 stages, whereas, it should 
have been done at ONE GO. This leaves vertical 
joints which are vulnerable. We also noted that, the 
Insured had to resort to concreting in stages, due to 
insufficient Batching Plants. 
7).	
Change in allocation of works amongst the Joint 
Venture Partners also played a key
role in the quality 
of workmanship. At several places, M/s.Gammon had 
to carryout the jobs, supposed to have been carried 
out by M.s,Hyundai. Even in the affected location of 
P4, the construction of Pier P4 was the responsibility 
of M/s. Hyundai, whereas, it was carried out by M/s 
Gammon. 
8).	
Lack of co-ordination and planning between proof 
checking consultant and design consultants could 
have been streamlined.
372
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
[…]
11).	 The sequence of concreting carried out on the date 
of failure, as informed to us, was different from the 
versions of the Insured. […]” 
23.	 It is important to note that the surveyor was examined as RW-1 and 
his evidence remained unrebutted. In National Insurance Company 
Ltd. v. Hareshwar Enterprises (P) Ltd.7 and National Insurance 
Company Ltd. v. Vedic Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd.,8 this court has 
held that the surveyor’s report is a credible evidence and the court 
may rely on it until a more reliable evidence is brought on record. In 
the present case, the surveyor’s report was the evidence tendered 
by the insurance company, and it has not been treated as unreliable 
by the NCDRC.
24.	 Mr. Naidu, appearing on behalf of the respondents, commenced his 
submission by referring to certain portions of the judgment of this 
court in Texco (supra) to emphasise that exclusionary clauses place 
extraordinary burden on the insurance company. We have already 
answered this question by referring to the evidence adduced by 
the appellant, which we consider to be a sufficient discharge of the 
burden. On the Expert Committee’s report, Mr. Naidu has re-iterated 
the finding of the NCDRC that it is inconclusive apart from being a 
mere opinion. Even this submission stands answered by extracting 
specific and categorical findings of the Committee as well as the 
surveyor’s report. 
25.	 Mr. Naidu sought to draw support
from the reports of independent 
experts on the issue of design to establish that the respondents are 
not at fault. Mr. Naidu sought to rely on reports by (i) Mr. Jacques 
Combault; (ii) M/s SETRA/CETE (French Ministry of Transportation 
Technical Department); (iii) M/s Halcrow Group Ltd.; and (iv) AECOM 
Asia Co. Ltd. 
26.	 At the outset, the concerned experts were never examined before the 
NCDRC. Further, these reports were not based on site-inspection. 
They are all theoretical in nature. For example, the report Mr. Jacques 
Combault is based on:
7	
[2021] 8 SCR 895 : (2021) SCC Online SC 628
8	
[2023] 7 SCR 419 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 648
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
373
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.  
M/s Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. & Ors.
“The analysis reported in the following pages is based on: 
	-
The description of Bridge Concept as proposed by 
Systra 
	-
The Main characteristics of the Structural Concept 
as proposed by Systra 
	-
The State of the Art in the field of prestressed concrete 
cable stayed bridges 
	-
Examples of similar bridges successfully achieved 
in the past”
After a theoretical analysis, the following conclusion is drawn:
“The structural concept of the Chambal Bridge as proposed 
by Systra is: - 
	-
perfectly fitting the site-conditions 
	-
conforming to the state of the art in the field of cable 
stayed bridges 
The construction methods, as proposed by Systra, are 
simple and proven processes well adapted to the structural 
concept.”
27.	 A similar approach was adopted by the other experts. On the other 
hand, the surveyor has examined himself and adduced documents. 
Further, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the surveyor has 
made site-visits and the proof of that was part of the pleadings filed 
before us. 
28.	 The submission that NHAI continuing the contract with respondent 
nos. 1 and 2 and they have, in fact, completed the contract does 
not impress us. The continuation of work by respondent nos. 1 and 
2 could be due to various reasons. Even if the NHAI’s decision to 
continue is taken to be a valid economic decision, that by itself cannot 
be a reason
for not applying the applicable clause of the contract if 
such applicability is otherwise proved by cogent evidence. 
29.	 For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the NCDRC 
fell into a clear error of law and fact in allowing the consumer complaint 
for multiple reasons. As we have not agreed with the preliminary 
objection of the appellant to reject the complaint and relegate the

374
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
respondents to civil court, we made extra efforts to examine the 
facts in detail. It is for this reason that the evidentiary value of the 
reports, their scope and ambit, and their contents were examined 
by us in some detail. 
30.	 For the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal and set-aside 
the impugned order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the NCDRC in 
Consumer Complaint No. 160 of 2019.
31.	 Pending applications, if any, shall be disposed of.
32.	 There shall be no order as to costs.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain