Insurance Company Cannot Reject Fire Claim Solely on Surveyor’s Opinion, Rules Kupwara Consumer Commission

June 17, 2026 : The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kupwara, has held that an insurance company cannot reject a genuine fire insurance claim merely on the basis of a surveyor’s unsupported opinion without producing independent documentary evidence. In a significant ruling strengthening consumer rights, the Commission directed Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. to pay over ₹19.10 lakh to a shop owner after finding that the repudiation of his insurance claim was arbitrary and legally unsustainable. The judgment was delivered on June 17, 2026, in Consumer Complaint No. 148 of 2025.

The complaint was filed by Showkat Ahmad Mir, a resident of Suddergund in Jammu and Kashmir’s Kupwara district, who operated a hosiery and ready-made garments business under the name “Beauty Park” at Sheikh Hamza Complex, Handwara. According to the complaint, he had obtained a fire insurance policy from Bajaj Allianz with a sum insured of ₹20 lakh covering the period from August 22, 2024, to August 21, 2025. On November 3, 2024, a fire broke out in the insured premises, causing extensive damage to the shop’s stock and furniture. Fire and Emergency Services personnel responded to the incident, and an FIR was registered at Handwara Police Station.

Following the incident, the complainant informed the insurer and submitted all relevant claim documents, including stock statements furnished to Punjab National Bank. A surveyor was appointed to assess the loss. However, instead of settling the claim, the insurance company repudiated it on December 15, 2024, categorising it as a “No Claim.” The insurer relied on the surveyor’s report, which alleged that several purchase invoices submitted by the complainant were fake and had not been issued by the concerned dealers.

Before the Consumer Commission, the complainant argued that the repudiation was arbitrary because the insurer had failed to provide any independent proof supporting the allegation that the invoices were fabricated. He maintained that his stock statements had been regularly submitted to the financing bank before the fire and that the insurer ignored these authentic business records while rejecting the claim. The insurance company, on the other hand, defended its decision by relying almost entirely on the findings recorded by the surveyor.

After examining the pleadings, documentary evidence and the surveyor’s report, the Commission observed that although a surveyor’s report is an important piece of evidence in insurance disputes, it is not conclusive and must withstand judicial scrutiny based on the material available on record. The Commission noted that the insurer had failed to produce any written confirmation, statement or denial from the alleged dealers establishing that the disputed invoices were fake. It also found that no independent documentary evidence had been placed on record to corroborate the surveyor’s conclusions.

The Commission contrasted this with the evidence produced by the complainant, including authenticated stock statements submitted to Punjab National Bank before the fire incident and other claim-related documents. These records, according to the Commission, carried significant evidentiary value because they had been created during the ordinary course of business prior to the occurrence of the insured event.

Explaining its reasoning, the Commission observed, “The surveyor’s report is an important piece of evidence… however, such a report is not conclusive and is required to be tested on the touchstone of the material placed on record.” It further held that “the allegations that the bills are fake cannot sustain in the absence of any written denial from the dealers. The OP has failed to justify the repudiation of the claim.” These findings became the basis for holding that the insurer’s repudiation of the claim was arbitrary and legally untenable.

Allowing the consumer complaint, the Commission directed Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. to pay ₹19,10,350 towards the insured loss suffered by the complainant. In addition, it awarded ₹20,000 as litigation costs and directed the insurer to comply with the order within one month from the date of the judgment.

The decision reinforces an important principle under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, that insurers cannot deny legitimate claims solely on the basis of an unverified surveyor’s opinion. Where allegations of fabricated invoices or fraudulent documents are raised, insurers must produce credible corroborative evidence rather than relying on unsupported assumptions. The ruling is likely to strengthen consumer protection in insurance disputes by reiterating that survey reports are subject to judicial scrutiny and cannot override reliable documentary evidence produced by policyholders.

Case Reference : Showkat Ahmad Mir v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.