As per case facts, an insured's basement flooded after a heavy downpour. The insurer repudiated the claim, citing a second, belated survey that blamed the loss on "seepage" (an excluded ... peril) rather than "flooding" (a covered peril), leading the NCDRC to dismiss the complaint. The appellant challenged the reliance on the second, contradictory survey. The question arose whether the NCDRC was correct in relying on a belated second survey attributing the damage to "seepage" (an excluded peril) when the first survey and other technical reports clearly pointed to "flooding" due to heavy rainfall (a covered peril). Finally, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the NCDRC's finding. The Court found that the initial survey and multiple expert certificates consistently pointed to flooding due to heavy rainfall, and the belated second survey failed to provide any justification for abruptly reversing this conclusion, making it arbitrary. The Court ruled the damage was due to heavy rainfall and remanded the matter to the NCDRC to determine the appropriate compensation.