Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.In the written statement filed on the side of the defendants, it is averred that the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-49-AB-2956 was insured with the defendants Company. It was alleged that the plaintiff has reported that her vehicle met with an accident on 15.05.2005 and sent the connected papers for claiming insurance. The claim of constructive total loss could not be claimed as desired by the plaintiff. The interpretation relating to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the provisions of the Indian Motor Tariff is not correct. The defendants could not make payment more than the assessed value determined by the Surveyor. The Surveyor has rightly and correctly applied the depreciation factor and that the plaintiff is entitled only to an amount of Rs.1,29,061/-, which cannot be termed as erroneous. At any rate, the plaintiff is not entitled to Rs.4,20,000/- towards the damages for her vehicle and compensation for pain and mental suffering and hence, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

c) Whether the approach of the first Appellate Court is perverse in nature due to non-consideration of the admission of the D.W.1 about the loss sustained by the appellant as total constructive loss as per the provisions of India Motor Tariff which amounts to admission as contemplated in the Indian Evidence Act?"

9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff contended that the first Appellate Court has failed to note that if the aggregate cost of retrieval or repair exceeds 75% of the insured declared value, then it should be construed as a total constructive loss and the insurance company is liable to pay the insured declared value. The first Appellate Court has also failed to note that G.R.8 of the Indian Motor Tariff alone is applicable, because the total cost of retrieval exceeds 75% of the insured declared value and prayed for allowing the Second Appeal.