Detailed Description Of Concealment Not Mandatory Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Bombay High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Child Is Not A Pawn To Prove Mother's Adultery: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Husband's DNA Test Petition In Desertion Divorce Case Shareholder Ratification Cannot Cure Fraud Under SEBI's PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Restores Rs. 70 Lakh Penalty on Company When High Court Judges Themselves Disagree on the Answer, Can a Law Graduate Be Penalised for Getting It Wrong? Supreme Court Says No Superficial Burns Don't Mean Silence: Supreme Court Explains Why 80-90% Burn Victim Could Still Make a Valid Dying Declaration Daughter's Eyewitness Account, Dying Declaration Seal Husband's Fate: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Wife-Burning Murder Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 106 Crore Compensation Claim; Directs SECL to Supply Coal to Prakash Industries at 2014 or 2019 Prices for Wrongfully Suspended Period Section 319 CrPC | Trial Court Cannot Conduct Mini Trial While Deciding Application to Summon Additional Accused: Supreme Court Accused Can't Be Left Without Documents To Defend: Calcutta High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To First Decide Whether Complete 'Relied Upon Documents' Were Served In PMLA Proceedings Husband Who Took Voluntary Retirement at 47 Cannot Escape Maintenance Duty: Delhi High Court Upholds ₹10,000/Month to Wife and Daughter Cannot Claim Monopoly Over a Deity's Name: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Trademark Injunction Against 'Kshetrapal Construction' Eviction Appeal Cannot Require Actual Surrender Of Possession, Symbolic Possession Sufficient: J&K High Court Amendment Introducing Time-Barred Relief And Changing Nature Of Suit Cannot Be Allowed: Karnataka High Court Counter Claim Is An Independent Suit: MP High Court Rules Properties Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Dragged Into Counter Claim Co-Sharer Cannot Be Bound By Passage Carved Out Without His Consent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Concurrent Decrees ‘Prima Facie True’ Is Enough to Deny Liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in Babbar Khalsa Terror Conspiracy Case High Court Cannot Quash FIR for Forgery When Handwriting Expert's Report Is Still Awaited: Supreme Court Supreme Court Calls for Paternity Leave Law, Says Father's Absence in Child's Early Years Leaves a "Quiet Cost" That Lasts a Lifetime Three-Month Age Cap for Adoptive Mothers' Maternity Benefit Struck Down: Supreme Court Reads Down Section 60(4) of Social Security Code Bank Cannot Rely on Charter Party Agreement to Justify Remittance Contrary to Customer's Instructions: Supreme Court 19 Candidates Linked to Accused, Papers of Five Subjects Leaked: Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation of UP Assistant Professor Exam Result

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