Skip to main content

Insurer Bound By 'Sum Insured'; Depreciation To Be Applied Only For Post Policy Period

In Sumit Kumar Saha vs Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd, an appeal challenging the order of National Consumer Redressal Commission was filed before the Supreme Court.

The subject of the dispute was appellant's Volvo Hydraulic Extractor, purchased in 2007 for a total purchase value of Rs.51,74,000, which was insured with the respondent. The policy was renewed for the year 2009-10 with the 'sum insured' of Rs.46,56,000/-.

In 2010, the excavator got damaged in fire. The insurance surveyor estimated loss on 'constructive total loss basis'. The surveyor applied depreciation at 32.5% for the period of three years and three months from the date of purchase of the excavator.

The appellant claimed that it was entitled to the sum insured of the excavator, being a case of total loss and approached the State Consumer Commission, against the settlement offered by insurer based on surveyor's estimate. The State Commission found that the insurer erred in applying depreciation of 32.5% on the original purchase value, instead of the sum insured for the policy term. The commission also held that the insurance surveyor's finding on under-insurance was not based on sum insured but on the depreciated value of original purchase cost. Therefore, the State Commission ordered the grant of Rs.41,90,940, which is the depreciated value of sum insured for the year 2009-10. Compensation of Rs.1 lakh was also awarded.

The National Commission however partly reversed the State Commission's order, and directed that appellant was entitled to Rs. 34,42,500, which was the depreciated value arrived at by the surveyor on the basis of original purchase value.

The Supreme Court held that it was not open for the parties of the contract to dispute that the value of the subject matter was different from the value declared and accepted by them at the time of entering into contract. The Court also noted that this was not a case where insurer alleges any fraud, misrepresentation or  non-disclosure of material fact by the insured. Following the SC decision in Dharmendra Goel vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd., the bench held that if both the parties had agreed and arrived at an understanding, which understanding was otherwise not vitiated by any misrepresentation, fraud or coercion, the parties must be held bound by stipulation of such figure.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more