IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9279 of 2011 DEVENDRA KUMAR SINHA, SON OF LATE RAM SWAROOP SINHA, RESIDENT OF DHARMSHOBHA, BACK OF OFFICER’S HOSTEL, BAILEY ROAD, P.S. KOTWALI, TOWN AND DISTRICT PATNA…………………………………………….PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT NEW INDIA ASSURANCE BUILDING, 87, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI-400001 THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. CHAIRMAN, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT NEW INDIA ASSURANCE BUILDING, 87, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI- 400001 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. PATNA REGIONAL OFFICE, 6TH AND 7TH FLOOR, FRASER ROAD, P.S. GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA THORUGH ITS REGIONAL MANAGER. 4. REGIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. PATNA REGIONAL OFFICE, 6TH AND 7TH FLOOR, FRASER ROAD, P.S. GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA. 5. MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. PATNA REGIONAL OFFICE, 6TH AND 7TH FLOOR, FRASER ROAD, P.S. GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA. 6. BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. PATNA REGIONAL OFFICE, 6TH AND 7TH FLOOR, FRASER ROAD, P.S. GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA………………………………………….RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner :Mr. D.K. Sinha, In Person. M/s Bajrang Lal and Abhinay Ray, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. M.P. Jaiswal, Advocate. ---------------------------------- 04/ 17.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and leaned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents - The New India Assurance Company Limited and its authorities to pay the assured amount against the vehicle belonging to the petitioner with interest. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner purchased a - 2 - Tata Safari, Dicor 2.2 EX, Make-Tata Motors of 2009 for Rs.9,31,881.00, whereafter the said vehicle was insured by the respondents vide policy dated 28.05.2009 (Annexure-1) in which the value of the vehicle was shown to be Rs.8,49,030.00 which was the SUM INSURED and the premium fixed was Rs.28,416.00 per annum. 4. It further transpires that the petitioner paid the premiums and after completion of the said period, the policy was renewed on 28.05.2010 (Annexure-2) for one year and Insured Declared Value was fixed at Rs.7,59,656.00 which was the SUM INSURED and the premium was fixed at Rs.19,926.00 per annum. The petitioner paid the premium on the said rate. 5. It is also not in dispute that on 18.07.2010 during the validity of the renewed policy, the aforesaid vehicle of the petitioner was stolen regarding which an F.I.R. bearing Kotwali P.S. Case No.208 of 2010 was lodged and the respondents authorities were informed. The police prepared final form on 28.02.2011 which was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna vide order dated 29.03.2011, a copy of which was sent by the petitioner to the respondents on 06.04.2011. Thereafter petitioner met respondent- authorities on 13.04.2011 and at their instance the petitioner filed his request with the required documents and papers but when nothing was done by the authorities, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition on 20.05.2011. 6. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents on 27.07.2011 in which it had been specifically stated that - 3 - since the vehicle was more than one year old at the time of renewal of the policy on 28.05.2010, the Insured Declared Value (IDV) should have been 20% less than the invoice price and the invoice price including tax being Rs.8,67,217.00, the deduction should have been Rs.1,73,445.00 at the rate of 20% apart from policy excess of Rs.1,000.00 and hence the net payable amount was Rs.6,92,774.00, but in the said policy dated 28.05.2010 it was wrongly mentioned Rs.7,59,656.00. In this connection, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon Clause GR.8 of General Regulations of Indian Motor Tariff laid down by the Tariff Advisory Committee for transaction of motor insurance business in India in accordance with the provisions of Part-II B of the Insurance Act,1938 (Annexure-B). He further submits that in the said circumstances, letter dated 16.06.2011 (Annexure-A) has been issued by the respondents to the petitioner informing that amount of Rs.6,92,774.00 has been approved by the competent authority and if he files the required documents, the payment would be immediately made. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case it is quite apparent that the original insurance dated 28.05.2009 (Annexure-1) was for Rs.8,49,030.00 which was the SUM INSURED and the premium fixed was Rs.28,416.00 per annum and on expiry of the period of the said policy it was renewed on 28.05.2010 in which the total amount of IDV was fixed at Rs.7,59,656.00 which was the SUM INSURED on which the premium was fixed at Rs.19,926.00 per annum which was paid by the petitioner. Now the respondents are - 4 - refusing to pay the aforesaid amount of SUM INSURED i.e. Rs.7,59,656.00 and is asserting that an amount of Rs.6,92,774.00 only is payable to the petitioner because the deduction after one year of the purchase on invoice price has to be 20% and not 10%. 8. The claim of the respondents appears to be quite strange as at the time of renewal of insurance, the SUM INSURED was fixed by the authorities themselves on the basis of which the premium was paid, but subsequently when the petitioner raised his claim the authorities have come up with a plea that deduction should have been at the higher rate of 20% and the respondents are liable to pay a lesser amount. This shows that at the time of fixing premiums the SUM INSURED is shown to be higher so that a higher amount of premium is received, but at the time of payment of the assured amount, the authorities are trying to show that the SUM INSURED should have been lesser, taking help of some provisions. This may amount to cheating of the clients by the respondents authorities, because if SUM INSURED would have been lesser, the authorities should have informed the insured person at the time of insurance itself and a lesser amount of premium as per the SUM INSURED should have been fixed but nothing of that sort has been done by the authorities, who went on receiving the premium at higher rate, but now at the time of payment of the sum insured they are raising frivolous obstacles. 9. Furthermore, the renewal policy dated 28.05.2010 is an agreement between the parties that the SUM INSURED would be - 5 - Rs.7,59,656.00 on the basis of which the insured, namely the petitioner was directed to pay the premium of Rs.19,926.00 per annum. When the petitioner has complied his terms of the agreement by paying the premium, it is the duty of the respondents authorities to comply their part of the agreement by paying the total value of the SUM INSURED. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the Regional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Patna (respondent no.4) is directed to pay the entire amount of SUM INSURED to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Harish (S.N.Hussain, J.)