Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

Consumer Law | No Liability For Payment Beyond Amount Payable Under Policy Unless Expenditure Incurred In Reinstatement: Supreme Court Upholds 60% Depreciation in Tata Steel Insurance Settlement

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court addressed the contentious issue of depreciation calculation in insurance claims, particularly focusing on the enforcement of the Reinstatement Value Clause within an insurance policy. The court upheld New India Assurance Company Ltd.'s (NIACL) decision to apply a 60% depreciation rate, rather than the 32% initially determined by surveyors, for property damaged by fire at Tata Steel Ltd. (formerly M/s Bhushan Steel and Strips Ltd).

Following a fire incident that destroyed its '20 Hi Cold Rolling Mill' on December 12, 1998, Tata Steel lodged a hefty claim of Rs. 35.08 crores. Although initial assessments by surveyors appointed by NIACL recommended a depreciation rate of 32%, subsequent reevaluations prompted NIACL to revise this rate to 60%, leading to a protracted legal battle that reached the Supreme Court.

Reinstatement Value Clause Inclusion: The Supreme Court confirmed the incorporation of the Reinstatement Value Clause in the insurance policy after rejecting Tata Steel's contention that it was not part of the policy, thereby emphasizing its critical role in the settlement process.

Assessment of Depreciation: The justices extensively reviewed the survey reports and methodologies employed in adjusting the depreciation rate from 32% to 60%. The court found the final adjustment to 60% by NIACL justified, based on comprehensive reassessments and expert advice that underscored a realistic depreciation considering the machinery's condition and operational lifespan.

Procedural Validity of NIACL’s Actions: The Court validated NIACL's procedural approach in reassessing the depreciation rate. It dismissed Tata Steel's arguments that the revised depreciation lacked a healthy basis, highlighting that NIACL had adhered to established insurance practices and conducted detailed reassessments that informed its final decision.

Judgment: The apex court's decision allowed NIACL's appeal, thus setting aside the earlier order of the NCDRC which had only partially favored Tata Steel by endorsing a lower depreciation rate. By confirming the depreciation rate at 60%, the court upheld that NIACL's settled amount of Rs. 7.88 crores was appropriately calculated as per the terms of the insurance policy.

Date of Decision: April 30, 2024.

New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. M/s Tata Steel Ltd.

Similar News