Appellant/complainant company purchased a Honda car for the use of its Director and got it insured from the respondent insurance company against the risk of ‘theft’ and ‘fire’. The policy expired in July 2000. Appellant got the policy renewed on 09.08.2000 at 12.30 p.m. by -2- depositing Rs.7288/- as premium in cash. The policy was issued for the period from 09.08.2000 to 08.08.2001. The vehicle got stolen from outside the residence of the Director on 09.08.2000, about which the Director came to know at 8.40 p.m. and immediately lodged complaint with the Police on PCR and FIR No.175/2000 u/s 379 IPC was registered at P.S. Naraina Vihar. Respondent Insurance company was also informed immediately thereafter who appointed a surveyor. Surveyor investigated the matter and confirmed the loss. Police issued an Untraced Report. Thereafter, appellant lodged claim with the respondent insurance company for a sum of Rs.6 Lac being the Insurance Declared Value and submitted all the requisite documents vide letter dated 25.09.2000. As the claim was not settled, alleging unfair trade practice on part of the respondent, appellant filed the complaint before the State Commission. State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay Rs.5 Lac to the complainant being the market value of the vehicle, assessed by the surveyor, instead of Insured Declared Value. Rs.25,000/- were awarded by way of compensation including costs. The State Commission did not award the interest. -3- Counsel for the appellant contends that the judgment of the State Commission runs counter to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. III (2008) CPJ 63 (SC)” and New India Road Carrier (Regd.) vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. 1 (2013) CPJ 243 (NC). We agree with the submission made by counsel for the appellant. Supreme Court in “Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2008) 8 SCC 279” has held that the insurance company after having accepted the value of the particular insured good cannot disown that very figure later on one pretext or the other when they are called upon to pay the compensation; that “take it or leave it” attitude of the insurance company was clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law but ethically indefisible. Para 7 of the judgment reads as under: “It must be borne in mind that Section 146 of the Motors Vehicles Act, 1988 casts an obligation on the owner of a vehicle to take out an insurance policy as provided under Chapter 11 of the Act and any vehicle driven without taking such a policy invites a punishment under Section 196 thereof. It is therefore, obvious that in the light of this stringent provision and being in a dominant position 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. We are also unable to accept the submission that it was for the -4- appellant to produce evidence to prove that the surveyor’s report was on the lower side in the light of the fact that a price had already been put on the vehicle by the company itself at the time of renewal of the policy. We accordingly hold that in these circumstances, the company was bound by the value put on the vehicle while renewing the policy on 13th February, 2002. The State Commission did not award any interest. Supreme court of India in “Alok Shanker Pandey vs. Union of India & Ors. (2007) 3SCC 545” has held that interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but is the normal accretion on capital; that in equity the person pocketing the amount is required to pay interest on the principal amount. Relevant observations of the Supreme Court are as under: “It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, say 10 years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest on the principal amount. Had A paid that amount to B 10 years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it for this period. Hence equity demands that A should not only pay back the principal amount but also the interest thereon to B.” Respectfully following the view taken by Supreme Court in Dharmendra Goel’s case (supra) and Alok Shanker Pandey’s case (supra), we accept this appeal and direct the respondent to pay Rs.6 Lac
-5- (Rupees Six Lac) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment to the appellant within six weeks from today after deducting the amount, if already paid, failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. No depreciation is allowed as the vehicle was stolen immediately after renewal of the policy. | 
