Petitioner insurance company was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Respondent/complainant took the fire and special perils policy dated 17.06.2007 covering the plant and machinery.  Value of the

plant and machinery was declared at Rs.16 Lacs.  There was a fire in the factory, as a result of which the machinery was damaged.  Respondent informed the petitioner which appointed a Surveyor who inspected the spot and advised that machinery be dismantled for making the assessment.  It is alleged that the quotations were placed before the Surveyor; that the damaged parts were inspected by the Surveyor; that the complainant took up the work as per the report of the Surveyor.  However, the Surveyor made his assessment by dis-scaling labour charges, electrification charges and other charges by deducting 75% towards depreciation of machinery.  Thus, attributing the scale adopted by the Surveyor as illegal, complaint was filed seeking direction to the petitioner to pay Rs.5,43,600/- with interest @ 18% p.a. with costs.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.5,43,600/- after deducting the amount already paid by the petitioner with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.  Rs.2,000/-were awarded by way of costs.

            Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.   We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Apart from what has been held by the State Commission, we may state that the petitioner had insured the machinery for a sum of Rs.16 Lacs and charged premium for that.  Later on, petitioner took the position that since the machinery was 17 years old it had depreciated by 75%.  The petitioner having insured the machinery for Rs.16 Lacs within the same year could not take the stand that it would deduct 75% towards depreciation because the machine was 17 years old while assessing the compensation.  Supreme Court of India in “Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. III (2008) CPJ 63 (SC)” deprecated this attitude by observing that “the insurance companies often act in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of a particular insured good disown that very figure on one pretext or the other when they are called upon to pay compensation. This `take it or leave it’ attitude is clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law but ethically indefensible.”  {Refer to para 7 of the aforesaid judgment}.  Dismissed.