Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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.

Latest Legal News