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

          Respondent got his vehicle insured with the petitioner in the sum of Rs.4 lakh.  Vehicle was stolen while parked in front of the gate of the complainant’s residence.  Complainant lodged claim with the petitioner, which was not settled.  Being aggrieved, respondent filed complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3 lakh by way of compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim till realization.  Rs.2,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.500/- as costs.  Petitioner accepted the order of the District Forum and did not file any appeal.  Complainant filed the appeal before the State Commission seeking compensation of the insured amount.  State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and directed the petitioner to pay the insured amount after deducting 10% towards depreciation.  It was held that the petitioner could not re-assess the market value after having insured the vehicle for a sum of Rs.4 lakh.  Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in Dharmendra Goel vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. – (2008)8 SCC 279 has taken the same view and held as under :

“5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record very carefully.  The facts as narrated above remain uncontroverted.  Admittedly, the accident had happened on 10.9.2002 during the validity of the insurance policy taken on 13.2.2002 insuring the vehicle for Rs.3,54,000/- on a premium of Rs.8498.  It is also the admitted position that the vehicle had been declared to be a total loss by the surveyor appointed by the Company though the value of the vehicle on total loss basis had been assessed at Rs.1,80,000.  We are, in the circumstances, of the opinion that as the Company staff had accepted the value of the vehicle at Rs.3,54,000/- on 13.2.2002, it could not claim that the value of the vehicle on total loss basis on 10.9.2002 i.e. on the date of the accident was only Rs.1,80,000.

6. It bears reiteration that the cost of the new vehicle was Rs.4,30,000 and it was insured in that amount on 19.1.2000 and on the expiry of this policy on 18.1.2001, was again renewed on 19.1.2001 on a value of Rs.3,59,000 and on the further renewal of the policy on 13.2.2002 the value was reduced by only Rs.5000 to Rs.3,54,000.  We are, therefore, unable to accept the Company’s contention that within a span of seven months from 13.2.2002 to the date of the accident, the value of the vehicle had depreciated from Rs.3,54,000 to Rs.1,80,000.

7. It must be borne in mind that Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 casts an obligation on the owner of that vehicle to take out an insurance vehicle 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 13.2.2002.”

          It was directed by the Supreme Court in the said case that the petitioner was liable to pay the insured amount after deducting depreciation.  The order passed by the State Commission is in line with the view taken by the Supreme Court referred to above.  Dismissed.