DHARMENDRA GOELversusORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

                         [2008] 11 S.C.R. 578


A                      DHARMENDRA GOEL
                                   II.
                 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 4720 of 2008)
                           JULY 30, 2008
B
       [ALTAMAS KABIR AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]                          )




        Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Insurance claim - Re-
  newal of Insurance policy of a vehicle in a sum of Rs 3, 54, 0001
c - on 13. 02. 02 tQ 12. 03. 03 - Accident during the insurance pe-
  riod - Estimate of Rs.3,37,246.591- for repair by Service sta-
  tion - However, Surveyor of Insurance Company assessed
  value of vehicle on total loss basis as Rs. 1, 80, 0001- - Claim
  of Rs.3,37,246.591- with additional charges - Dismissed by
  District Forum - Award of Rs.1,04,0431- with interest@ 6%
D
  p.a. by State Commission - However, National Commission
  awarded Rs.1,80,0001- with interest @12% p.a. - On appeal,
  held: Insurance company having accepted the value of ve-
  hicle at Rs.3,54,0001- on 13.02.02 was bound by it- It could
                                                                       I
                                                                       '
  not claim that the value of vehicle on total loss basis on date
E of accident was only Rs. 1, 80, 0001- - Value of vehicle could
  not depreciate from Rs. 3, 54, 0001- to Rs. 1, 80, 0001- from date
  of renewal of policy to tbe date of accident - However, on ac-
  count of some depreciation, during the said period, value of
  vehicle reduced by Rs.10,0001- - Claimant to be paid sum of
F Rs. 3, 44, 0001-.

         The appellant purchased a new vehicle for a sum of
  Rs. 4,30,000/-. On 19.01.00, the vehicle was comprehen-
  sively insured in that amount with the respondent-Insur-
  ance Company. On expiry of the policy, it was again re-
G
  newed for a year on 19.01.01 on the value of Rs.3,59,000/
  -. It was further renewed on 13.02.02 upto 12.03.03 on the
  value assessed at Rs.3,54,000/-. The vehicle met with an
  accident on 10.09.02. The service station submitted an

H                                 578
               DHARMENDRA GOEL v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE            579
                            CO. LTD.

       estimate of Rs.3,37,246.59/-for the repair of the vehicle. A
       The appellant submitted a claim for Rs. 3,37,246.59 /-with
       some additional charges. Howevei, the Surveyor ap-
       pointed by the respondent assessed the total loss as Rs.
       1,80,000/-. The appellant filed a complaint before the Dis-
       trict Consumer Forum seeking a sum of Rs.3,37,246.59 /- B
       with some additional charges. The District Forum dis-
       missed the complaint. In appeal, the State Commission
       directed the respondent to pay the appellant Rs. 1,04,043/
       - with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the filing of the
       complaint till payment. The appellant filed a revision peti- c
       tion claiming a sum of Rs. 3,54,000/- as compensation.
       The National Commission granted a compensation of
       Rs.1,80,000/- with interest @12% p.a. Hence the present
....   appeal.
             Allowing the appeal, the Court                           D
               HELD: 1.1 The accident happened on 10.09.02 dur-
         ing the validity of the Insurance Policy taken on 13.02.02
         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.ap- E
       . pointed by the company though the value of the vehicle
         on total loss basis had been assessed at Rs.1,80,000/-.
         As the company itself had accepted the value of the ve-
         hicle at Rs.3,54,000/- on 13.02.02, it could not claim that
         the value of the vehicle on total loss basis on 10.09.02-on F
         the date of accident was only Rs.1,80,000/-. The company's
         contention that within a span of seven months from
         13.02.02 to the date of the accident, the value of the ve-
         hicle had depreciated from Rs.3,54,000/- to Rs.1,80,000/-
         cannot be accepted. [Para 6] [583 E-G 584 A-B]                G
            1.2 ~ection 146 of the Motors Vehicles Act, 1988 casts
        an obligation on the owner of a vehicle to take out an in-
        surance policy as provided under Chapter 11 of the Act
        and any vehicle driven without taking such a policy in- H
    580      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2008] 11 S.C.R.

                                                                   -1
A   vites a punishment under Section 196 thereof. Therefore,               ,,......
    it is obvious that in the light of this stringent provision
    and being in a dominant position the insurance compa-
    nies often act in an unreasonable manner and after hav-                     !>

    ing accepted the value of a particular insured good dis-
B   own that very_ figure on one prete.xt 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. [Para 6] [584 8-E]
          1.3 The submission that it was for the appellant to
c 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 cannot be accepted. In
  these circumstances, the company was bound by the
D value put on the vehicle while renewing the policy on
  13.02.02. [Para 6] [584 D-E]
                                                                   ,,. .... '
        1.4 In the course of hearing before the National Com-
  mission, the respondent submitted that the appellant had
  limited his claim to Rs.1,80,000/- and having been awarded
E that amount, could not claim anything beyond that fig-
  ure. However, from a bare reading of the order of the Na-               ...
  tional Commission the respondent submitted that the pri-
  mary claim made by the appellant was for a sum of
  Rs.3,54,000/- and in the alternative for Rs.1,80,000/-. This
F fact is made more explicit from the grounds of revision
  filed before the National Commission wherein a sum of
  Rs.3,50,000/- had been repeatedly claimed. Even other-
  wise, in such matters, the court must take a realistic view
  and if a particular claim to compensation is possible on
G the material on record, it should not be denied on hyper
  technical pleas. [Para 7] [584 F-H 585 A]
        1.5 The submission that as the vehicle had been in-        -f

    sured for Rs.3,54,000/- on 13.02.02 and the accident had
    happened about seven months later (on 10.09.02), some
H
                  DHARMENDRA GOEL v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE              581
                      CO. LTD. [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
     tt·
           depreciation in the value of the vehicle ought to be made        A
           and the compensation determined on that basis, is ac-
           cepted. The value of the vehicle is reduced by Rs.10,000/
           -. The appellant is directed to be paid a sum of Rs.3,44,000/
           - with interest. [Paras 8 and 9] [585 8-D]
                                                                            B
     .          CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4720
           of 2008
                From the Judgment and Order dated 20.4.2006 of the
           National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
           Delhi in revision Petition No. 2405 of 2004                      c
               D.K. Singh, Pradeep Shukla and Abhijit Sengupta for the
                                                                     •
           Appellant.
                A.K. Raina and Anil Kumar Jha for the Respondent.
                The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                  D
...... ~        HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. 1. Leave granted.
                 2. This appeal by way of special leave arises out of the
           followin~ facts:
                                                                            E
                 3. On 4th January, 2000, the appellant herein purchased a
           new Tata Sumo vehicle for a sum of Rs. 4,30,000/-. The vehicle
           was comprehensively insured on 19th January, 2000 with the
           Oriental Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as 'the
           Company' ) on its purchase value of Rs. 4,30,000/- and a pre-
           mium of Rs. 10,436/- was paid. This policy expired on 18th Janu- F
           ary, 2001 and on the very next day the said policy was renewed
           for a year by the company assessing the value of the vehicle at
           Rs.3,59,000/-. This policy expired on 181h January, 2002 but
           was again renewed on 13th February, 2002 up to 12th March,
           2003 on a premium of Rs. 8498/- on the value assessed by the G
           Company at Rs.3,54,000/- The vehicle met with an accident on
     .,.   1Oth September, 2002 on which the appellant informed the com-
           pany as to what had transpired. The vehicle was removed to
           Chambal Motors, Kota, Rajasthan, an authorized service sta-
           tion of Tata Motors, for repair. Chambal Motors submitted an H
    582       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 11 S.C.R.


A   estimate of Rs.3,37,246.59/-for the repair of the vehicle. The
    appellant then submitted a claim for Rs. 3,37,246.59 /-on 11th
    October, 2002 alongwith a bill of Rs.4,000/- for removing the
    vehicle to the workshop from the place of accident. The com-
    pany, however, appointed a Surveyor, M.N. Chaturvedi Associ-
B   ates on 14th December, 2002 to assess the loss and to submit           )
    a report. The surveyor in his report determined a total loss of
    Rs. 1,80,000/- after assessing the value of the salvage at
    Rs.85,000/- whereas the assessment on cash loss basis was
    made at Rs.1,04,433.53/-. The company, however, declined to
c   defray any amount to the appellant on the plea that the driver
    did not have a valid driving licence on the date of the accident.
    The appellant thereupon filed a complaint before the District
    Consumers Forum praying that the sum of Rs.3,37,246.59 /-,
    the estimate give·n by Chambal Motors with some additional
    charges, be paid to the appellant. After the completion of the
D   pleadings, the District Forum, by its order dated 19th January,
    2004, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the question
    as to whether the driver of the vehicle had a valid driving licence
    on the date of the accident involved complicated questions of
    fact which could be decided only by a Civil Court. Aggrieved by
E   this order the appellant filed an appeal before the M.P. State
    Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal. The Com-
    mission in its order dated 28th July, 2004 held that the driver did
    have a valid driving licence on the date of the accident and ac-
    cordingly directed the Company to pay to the appellant a sum
F   of Rs. 1,04,043/- with interest@ 6% p.a. from the date of the
    filing of the complaint till payment. Dissatisfied by the inadequate
    compensation awarded by the State Commission, the appel-
    lant preferred a revision petition before the National Consumer
    Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter called
G   "the National Commission"), claiming a sum of Rs. 3,54,000/-
    towards compensation. The National Commission, by its order
    dated 20th April, 2006 partly allowed the appeal and granted a
    compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- witfi interest @12% p.a. The
    claimant is before us in appeal in these circumstances.
H
                       DHARMENDRA GOEL v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE                 583
                           CO. LTD. [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
       '.It-
                     4. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised only       A
               one argument in the course of hearing. He has submitted that
               the company itself had issued an insurance policy in a sum of
               Rs.3,54,000/- effective from 13th February, 2002 to 12th March,
               2003 and had also accepted a premium on that basis and as
               such to claim that the appellant was entitled to a figure below      B
      ;ii
               that amount was wholly unjustified. He has also submitted in
               elucidation, that there was absolutely no basis for the surveyor's
               conclusion that the appellant was entitled to a sum of
               Rs.1,80,000/-on total loss basis in the face of the estimate made
               by the Chambal Motors for a much larger amount.                      c
                     5. The learned counsel for the Company - Respondent
               has , however, pointed out that the appellant's counsel, had in
               his arguments before the National Commission, given up his
               claim to Rs.3,54,000/- as now contended, and had limited the
               same to Rs.1,80,000/- and this amount had in fact been allowed       D
               and in this view of the matter, any claim for a further sum was
;..._. -i      not justified. It has also been pleaded that the appellant had led
               no eviderice to challenge the value put on the vehicle by the
               surveyor so as to substantiate his claim.
                     6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and E
               have gone through the record very carefully. The facts as nar-
                rated above remain uncontroverted. Admittedly, the accident
               had happened on 1Oth September, 2002 during the validity of
               the Insurance Policy taken on 13th February, 2002 insuring the
               vehicle for Rs.3,54,000/- on a premium of Rs.8498/- It is also F
     ~
               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 itself had accepted the value of the vehicle G
               at Rs.3,54,000/- on 13th February, 2002, if could not claim that
               the value of the vehicle on total loss basis on 1oth September,
      ~        2002 i.e., on the date of the accident was only Rs.1,80,000/-. It
               bears reiteration that the cost of the new vehicle was
               Rs.4,30,000/- and it was insured in that amount on 19th Janu- H
    584      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2008] 11 S.C.R.


A ary, 2000 and on the expiry of this policy on 18th January, 2001,
  was again renewed on 19th January, 2001 on a value of
  Rs.3,59,000/- and on the further renewal of the policy on 13th
  February, 2002 the value was reduced by only Rs.5,000/- to
  Rs.3,54,000/-. We are, therefore, unable to accept the
B company's contention that within a· span of seven months from
  13th February 2002 to the date of the accident, the value of the     )
  vehicle had depreciated from Rs.3,54,000/-to Rs.1,80,000/-. 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
C 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, obvio.us
  that in the light of this stringent provision and being in a domi-
  nant position the insurance companies often act in an unrea-
D sonable manner and after having accepted the.value of .a par-
  ticular 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 pro-
E duce 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 re-
F newing the policy on 13th February, 2002.
        7. The learned counsel for the respondent, has however,
  argued that in the course of hearing before the National Com-
  mission, the appellant had limited his claim to Rs.1,80,000/-
G and having· been awarded that amount, could not claim any-
  thing beyond that figure. We, however, notice from a bare read-
  ing of the order of the National Commission that the primary
  claim made by the appellant was tor a sum of Rs.3,54,000/-
  and in the alternative for Rs.1.,80,000/-. This fact is made more
  explicit from the grounds of revision filed before the National
H
        DHARMENDRA GOEL v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE                585
            CO. LTD. [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]

Commission wherein a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- had been repeat-          A
edly claimed. Even otherwise, we believe that in such matters,
the court must take a realistic view and if a particular claim to
compensation is possible on the material on record, it should
not be denied on hyper technical pleas, as has been argued by
the respondent's counsel.                                           B
      8. The learned counsel for.the respondent company has
finally submitted that as the vehicle had been insured for
Rs.3,54,000/- on 13th February, 2002 and the accident had hap-
pened about seven months later (on 1Qth September, 2002),
some depreciation in the value of the vehicle ought to be made C
and the compensation determined on that basis. We accept
this prayer of the learned counsel and keeping in view that about
seven months of the policy had expired, order that the value of
the vehicle should be reduced by Rs.10,000/-
                                                                    D
      9. We accordingly allow the appeal and direct that the
appellant should be paid a sum of Rs.3,44,000/- with interest.
in the manner determined by the National Commission. The
appellant shall also have his costs which are quantified at
Rs.25,000/-.
                                                                    E
N.J.                                           Appeal allowed.