LexDHARMENDRA GOEL versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 578 A DHARMENDRA GOEL II. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 4720 of 2008) B JULY 30, 2008 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] ) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Insurance claim - Re- newal of Insurance policy of a vehicle in a sum of Rs 3, 54, 0001 c - on 13. 02. 02 tQ 12. 03. 03 - Accident during the insurance pe- riod - Estimate of Rs.3,37,246.591- for repair by Service sta- tion - However, Surveyor of Insurance Company assessed value of vehicle on total loss basis as Rs. 1, 80, 0001- - Claim of Rs.3,37,246.591- with additional charges - Dismissed by D District Forum - Award of Rs.1,04,0431- with interest@ 6% p.a. by State Commission - However, National Commission awarded Rs.1,80,0001- with interest @12% p.a. - On appeal, I held: Insurance company having accepted the value of ve- hicle at Rs.3,54,0001- on 13.02.02 was bound by it- It could ' E not claim that the value of vehicle on total loss basis on date of accident was only Rs. 1, 80, 0001- - Value of vehicle could not depreciate from Rs. 3, 54, 0001- to Rs. 1, 80, 0001- from date of renewal of policy to tbe date of accident - However, on ac- count of some depreciation, during the said period, value of vehicle reduced by Rs.10,0001- - Claimant to be paid sum of F Rs. 3, 44, 0001-. The appellant purchased a new vehicle for a sum of Rs. 4,30,000/-. On 19.01.00, the vehicle was comprehen- sively insured in that amount with the respondent-Insur- G ance Company. On expiry of the policy, it was again re- newed for a year on 19.01.01 on the value of Rs.3,59,000/ -. It was further renewed on 13.02.02 upto 12.03.03 on the value assessed at Rs.3,54,000/-. The vehicle met with an accident on 10.09.02. The service station submitted an H 578 .... DHARMENDRA GOEL v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 579 CO. LTD. estimate of Rs.3,37,246.59/-for the repair of the vehicle. A The appellant submitted a claim for Rs. 3,37,246.59 /-with some additional charges. Howevei, the Surveyor ap- pointed by the respondent assessed the total loss as Rs. 1,80,000/-. The appellant filed a complaint before the Dis- trict Consumer Forum seeking a sum of Rs.3,37,246.59 /- B with some additional charges. The District Forum dis- missed the complaint. In appeal, the State Commission directed the respondent to pay the appellant Rs. 1,04,043/ - with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the filing of the complaint till payment. The appellant filed a revision peti- c tion claiming a sum of Rs. 3,54,000/- as compensation. The National Commission granted a compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest @12% p.a. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The accident happened on 10.09.02 dur- ing the validity of the Insurance Policy taken on 13.02.02 insuring the vehicle for Rs.3,54,000/- on a premium of D Rs .. 8498/- It is also the admitted position that the vehicle had been declared to be a total loss by the surveyor.ap- E . pointed by the company though the value of the vehicle on total loss basis had been assessed at Rs.1,80,000/-. As the company itself had accepted the value of the ve- hicle at Rs.3,54,000/- on 13.02.02, it could not claim that the value of the vehicle on total loss basis on 10.09.02-on F the date of accident was only Rs.1,80,000/-. The company's contention that within a span of seven months from 13.02.02 to the date of the accident, the value of the ve- hicle had depreciated from Rs.3,54,000/- to Rs.1,80,000/- cannot be accepted. [Para 6] [583 E-G 584 A-B] G 1.2 ~ection 146 of the Motors Vehicles Act, 1988 casts an obligation on the owner of a vehicle to take out an in- surance policy as provided under Chapter 11 of the Act and any vehicle driven without taking such a policy in- H 580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. -1 A vites a punishment under Section 196 thereof. Therefore, ,,...... it is obvious that in the light of this stringent provision and being in a dominant position the insurance compa- nies often act in an unreasonable manner and after hav- !> ing accepted the value of a particular insured good dis- B own that very_ figure on one prete.xt or the other when they are called upon to pay compensation. This 'take it or leave ). it' attitude is clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law but ethically indefensible. [Para 6] [584 8-E] 1.3 The submission that it was for the appellant to c produce evidence to prove that the surveyor's report was o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.