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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more