New India Assurance Company Ltd. through its Manager vs. M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. (Supreme Court, 30 April 2024)
Background
This case arose from an insurance claim by Tata Steel Ltd. (formerly Bhushan Steel and Strips Ltd.) after a fire destroyed its '20 Hi Cold Rolling Mill' on December 12, 1998. The machinery was insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd. (NIACL). Tata Steel claimed losses of ₹35.08 crores. NIACL, after initial surveyor reports, released an interim payment of ₹4.92 crores. Disputes arose regarding the final settlement, particularly over the applicable depreciation rate and the inclusion of the Reinstatement Value Clause (RVC) in the policy.
Tata Steel argued that the claim should be settled for a higher amount (₹18.91 crores), contending that the base value for depreciation should be ₹28 crores and that the RVC was not part of the policy. NIACL, relying on further surveyor assessments, settled the claim at ₹7.88 crores after applying 60% depreciation, maintaining that the RVC was included and justified a higher depreciation rate.
NCDRC Proceedings
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) partially allowed Tata Steel’s complaint, awarding ₹13.15 crores with 10% interest, reducing the depreciation rate to 32%. Both parties appealed: NIACL challenged the reduced depreciation, and Tata Steel contested the base value and the inclusion of the RVC.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court, per Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan, focused on three main issues:
Depreciation Rate: The Court upheld NIACL’s application of 60% depreciation, finding it well-supported by surveyor reports and established insurance practice. The Court found that the NCDRC erred in reducing the rate to 32%, noting that the surveyors and additional affidavits justified the higher rate based on the machinery’s age and condition.
Reinstatement Value Clause: The Court rejected Tata Steel’s argument that the RVC was not part of the policy, holding that the clause was indeed incorporated and governed the settlement process.
Base Value: The Court maintained the base figure of ₹20.09 crores for calculating depreciation, as no substantial arguments were raised to challenge this amount.
The Court also clarified that there was no breach of Regulation 9(3) of the IRDA (Protection of Policyholders Interests) Regulations, 2002, and that NIACL’s actions were consistent with established procedures.
Judgment and Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed NIACL’s appeal, set aside the NCDRC’s order, and dismissed Tata Steel’s consumer complaint. The Court held that the claim was rightly settled at ₹7.88 crores after applying 60% depreciation, in accordance with the insurance policy terms and industry practice.
Significance
This judgment clarifies the standards for assessing depreciation in industrial insurance claims and reinforces the binding nature of policy terms, including the RVC. It also underscores the Supreme Court’s deference to established insurance practices and expert assessments in complex technical disputes.
Citation: New India Assurance Company Ltd. through its Manager vs. M/s. Tata Steel Ltd., Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 2759 of 2009, Judgment dated 30 April 2024.
RELATED Blog
0 comments