Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Supreme Court Rules on Landmark Insurance Case: "Constructive Total Loss Validated, Insurers' Liability Capped at IDV"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Lekhika


In a significant judgment that clarifies the boundaries of insurance liability and consumer rights, the Supreme Court today delivered its verdict in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mukul Aggarwal & Ors. (2023 INSC 1005). The case centered around the total loss of a BMW 3 Series 320D car in an accident, raising crucial questions on the interpretation of insurance policy terms and the extent of liability for insurers.

The apex court, in a detailed judgment by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, held that the insurer's liability in the case of total loss is limited to the Insured Declared Value (IDV) minus the value of the wreck. "The liability of the Company shall not exceed... the Insured's Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle (including accessories thereon) as specified in the Schedule less the value of the wreck," the Court observed, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the terms of the insurance policy.

This decision arises from the appeals against the judgment of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, which dealt with the total loss claim of a BMW car. The Supreme Court has partly allowed the appeals, directing monetary compensation based on policy terms and the assessment of total loss, but not mandating replacement of the car.

Justice Oka, while delivering the judgment, reiterated the principle that an insurance contract's terms must be construed strictly without altering the contract's nature. The Court also clarified the application of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in such disputes, stating that consumer grievance redressal must be adjudicated based on policy terms, insurer’s responsibilities, and consumer rights.

The judgment also touched upon the issue of territorial jurisdiction and the assessment of insurance claims, particularly the concept of constructive total loss. It was established that constructive total loss occurs when the cost of repair exceeds 75% of the IDV, a key point in this case.

The Supreme Court's decision in this landmark case sets a precedent for future disputes involving insurance claims, particularly those concerning total loss of insured property. The judgment is seen as a balanced approach, protecting the interests of both insurers and consumers within the framework of existing laws and contractual obligations.

Date of Decision: 20th November 2023

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. VS Mukul Aggarwal & Ors.

Latest Legal News