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

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