AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 346 wordsTHE State Commission of Tamil Nadu at Madras, has ordered the Appellant Insurance Company to pay Rs. 1.70 lacs to the Complainant No. 1 as compensation with interest at 12 per cent from 3.7.1990 onwards a insurance loss on the lorry belonging to the repondent/complainant.
THE lorry met with a fire accident on 2.6.1990. Shri T.R. Ravi made a preliminary survey of the insured property damaged by fire. This was followed by a final survey by M/s. Shanmugam Associates, Insurance Surveyors. Both the surveyors were appointed by the Appellant Insurance Company. The second Surveyor declared that the whole vehicle had been affected by fire. It had been badly burnt out, the components were badly affected and needed total replacement and that it was not technically and economically possible to replace the vehicle. He, therefore, gave three alternative assessments of liability for the loss: (a) On repair basis at Rs. 2 lacs; (b) on total loss basis at Rs. 1.95 lacs if the Insurance Company retained the wreck; and (c) on salvage loss basis Rs. 1.70 lacs (if the insured was allowed to retain the wreck. The market value was assessed at Rs. 2.40 lacs and the value of the salvage material being Rs. 70,000/-). The insured respondent gave consent letter to settle the claim for Rs. 1.70 lacs on salvage loss basis with a stipulation "subject to retain the wreck...."
The Appellant Insurance Company, opted for the alternative most favourable to the insurer, viz., "Salvage loss basis."
The Surveyor, as already mentioned, was appointed by the Appellant Insurance Company. We feel that it is not fair now for the Appellant Insurance Company to dispute the factum of total loss and to suggest that the respondent/complainant had exaggerated the damage sustained by the vehicle. He, in our opinion, is estopped from reopening the case and reassessing the damage on repair basis. We agree with the findings of the State Commission. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the Order of the State Commission is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.