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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

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