5 min readNew DelhiJun 19, 2026 09:00 AM IST
First published on: Jun 19, 2026 at 09:00 AM IST
A Srinagar consumer commission has granted relief to the family of a dead homeowner whose house was severely damaged during the devastating 2014 Kashmir floods and directed United India Insurance Company to pay Rs 3.48 lakh after finding that the insurer had failed to justify substantial deductions made while settling the claim.
President Dr Farah Deeba and Shabnam Munshi (member) noted that the complaint was originally instituted by attorney holder S Balbair Singh on behalf of S Sital Singh, both of whom died during the pendency of the proceedings.
“Taking a holistic view of all the materials/evidence discussed hereinabove coupled with prolonged pendency of the complaint before this commission, we feel that the matter requires to be settled on approximation on the strength of the aforenoted materials without being unduly harsh to any of the parties. Thus, the net payable loss assessed as such would be worked out at Rs 7.50 lacs (50% of Rs 15.00 lacs). That having not been done, the opposite party is held to be deficient in service,” the June 6 order read.
The commission was hearing a complaint filed by the legal heirs of Late Sital Singh, who sought insurance compensation following the destruction of their residence in the September 2014 floods. The house was allegedly insured for Rs 15 lakh.
Matter not disposed of for 11 years
- The commission noted that the matter is from old stock and has been awaiting disposal for more than 11 years.
- The consumer body noted that the complainant suffered extensive damage to his residential house as a result of the floods of September, 2014.
- The commission noted that due to the severity of damage caused by the floods, the complainant was compelled to reconstruct the residential house.
- It was held that the necessity of reconstruction itself constitutes a strong circumstance indicating that the damage suffered by the insured property was substantial and not merely cosmetic or superficial in nature.
- It was found that the evidence placed on record further establishes that the amount ultimately paid by the insurance company did not adequately indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant.
- The commission noted that the complainant has received only Rs 4.13 lakh from the insurance company on account of indemnification.
- The commission directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs 3.37 lakh to the legal heirs of the complainant as the balance amount on account of actual loss.
- The insurance company was also instructed to pay Rs 11,000 as litigation charges to the legal heirs of the complainant within 45 days.
September 2014 flood, years of litigation
It was placed on record that the late complainant was residing along with his family in a double-storeyed residential house in Srinagar. The said residential building was allegedly insured with the insurance company concerned under a standard fire and special perils policy.
It was added that the insurance policy was valid from June 2014 to June 2015 for a sum assured of Rs 15 lakh.
It was contended that during the devastating floods of September 2014, the insured house of the complainant remained submerged under flood waters for a considerable period of time and suffered extensive damage, rendering the structure unsafe and unfit for use.
The complainant allegedly intimated the insurance company about the loss and sought indemnification. He alleged that the said insurance company failed to settle the claim fairly and released only a fraction of the actual loss suffered.
The complainant maintained that due to non-settlement of this claim on an actual loss basis, he was subjected to immense pain, agony, harassment and financial loss. Aggrieved by the action of the insurance company, the complainant filed a case in the consumer forum seeking indemnification of loss on an actual basis besides payment of compensation and litigation charges.
The complainant was represented by advocate Amir Khurshid in the matter.
Defence of insurance company
The insurance company was represented by advocate N H Khuroo, who admitted that the policy of insurance was bought by the complainant and also the event causing loss. However, he resisted the complaint, contending that soon after receipt of intimation from the complainant, M/s N Kumar Surveyors Pvt Ltd was appointed as surveyor to assess the loss.
It was added that the appointed surveyor assessed the payable loss at Rs 4.13 lakh after applying the average clause on account of under-insurance. It was contended that the complainant accepted the said amount as full and final settlement of the claim by furnishing a consent to the assessment and by executing a discharge voucher.
The insurance company maintained that they are not deficient in service towards the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Significance of ruling
This ruling reflects that an insurer cannot escape liability merely by claiming that the insured accepted a “full and final settlement” when supporting documents are not produced before the commission. It also highlights that legal heirs can continue and receive compensation even if the original complainant dies during the pendency of the proceedings.
Consumer helpline number of respective state and national consumer commission: For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Commission Helpline: 1800 180 7114) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
The commission held that the necessity of reconstruction of house itself constitutes a strong circumstance indicating that the damage suffered by the insured property was substantial. (AI-generated image) 
Share
