LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Consumer RightsSupreme Court of India

National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Vedic Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 4979 of 2019)

Civil Appeal · 2023 INSC 545Decided 17 May 2023
Civil Appeal No. 4979 of 2019
Ajay Rastogi · Bela M. Trivedi

Background

Vedic Resorts, which ran a resort in West Bengal, held two insurance policies covering its buildings, plant, furniture and stock. In August 2009, a mob of 200-250 people entered the resort and damaged/destroyed insured property. This happened after an unrelated shooting at a nearby football match, where a criminal named Gaffar Molla and his associates fled and took shelter inside the resort compound; the enraged crowd chased them there and vandalized the property, and a subsequent police search of the resort found firearms and explosives stored on the premises. The insurer repudiated the claim (assessed by its own surveyor at about Rs. 202.216 lakhs), arguing the loss was really the result of the resort management's own "malicious act" of harbouring the criminals, which fell within a policy exclusion clause. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rejected this and ordered payment, leading the insurer to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that the exclusion clause only removed cover for damage caused by burglary, theft, or a malicious act, and that the burden of proving such an exclusion applies rests squarely on the insurer. On the facts, the shooting and the resulting mob violence originated at the football ground over an unrelated matter, and there was no real evidence that the resort's own management had maliciously caused the damage to its own property: the fact that the fleeing criminals happened to take shelter there did not convert the mob's retaliatory destruction into an act of the insured's own malice. The Court reaffirmed the established principle that ambiguity in an insurance contract must be resolved in favour of the insured (the doctrine of contra proferentem), and that a surveyor's report, while not final, cannot be brushed aside without cogent reasons, which the insurer failed to provide here. The appeal was dismissed and the Commission's award upheld.

Lesson Learnt

An insurer seeking to deny a claim under an exclusion clause must affirmatively prove the exclusion applies; mere circumstantial proximity between a criminal incident and damage to the insured's property is not enough to brand the policyholder's own loss as "malicious," and genuine doubt in an insurance policy's wording is resolved in favour of the person who bought the cover.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Vedic Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 4979 of 2019) – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware