Petitioner was the Opposite Party before the District Forum. Respondent got his Tata 407 insured from the Petitioner in the sum of Rs. 2,25,000/-. The said vehicle was stolen on 31.12.1997 and a report to that effect was lodged with the police. The policy was valid from 29.08.1997 to 03.08.1998. On being informed Petitioner appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs. 1,70,000/-. The claim was not settled. Being aggrieved Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the Complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- to the complainant along-with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 01.03.1998 till realization. Rs. 5,000/- were granted towards harassment and Rs. 500/- towards the costs. Being aggrieved Petitioner filed the appeal before the State Commission. State Commission partially modified the order of the District forum by directing the Petitioner to pay Rs. 2,25,000/- less 5% depreciated value as the car had been used for a period of four months from taking the insurance till it was stolen with interest @ 9% p.a. instead of 12% p.a. w.e.f date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization. The State Commission came to the conclusion that once the market value accepted or assessed and corresponding premium is received, the insurance company cannot re-open the issue to reassess the market value. Value can be assessed on the established norm i.e. by way of depreciated value of the vehicle. Otherwise fixing insurance amount and charging the correspondence premium would lose its meaning or the import. The order passed by the State Commission is in line with the Judgement of the Supreme Court of India in harmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2008) 8 SCC 279 In the said case Honle Apex Court 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 ake it or leave itattitude 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: t 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 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. Since the order passed by the State Commission is in line of the Judgement of the Supreme Court we do not find any material irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission. Dismissed with no orders as to costs.