MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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