Go Back   Team-BHP > BHP India > Motorbikes


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 23rd August 2014, 17:05   #31
Senior - BHPian
 
ebonho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pune
Posts: 3,942
Thanked: 3,178 Times
Default Re: Only 50% compensation to kin as biker wasn’t wearing a helmet

That is why all old timers maintain that in spite of the premiums being heavier, and regardless of what fancy spreadsheets Policy Bazaar etc. lay out before you, when it comes to insurance and claim settlement, no one beats sarkari companies, like LIC. I have an extremely poor view of all private insurance players to be perfectly honest.

Vultures.

Last edited by ebonho : 23rd August 2014 at 17:17.
ebonho is offline   (3) Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2014, 17:11   #32
Distinguished - BHPian
 
saket77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Ranchi
Posts: 3,192
Thanked: 4,254 Times
Default Re: Only 50% compensation to kin as biker wasn’t wearing a helmet

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebonho View Post
That is why all old timers maintain that in spite of the premiums being heavier, and regardless of what fancy spreadsheets Polict Baaar etc. lay out before you, when it comes to insurance and claim settlement, no one beats sarkari companies, like LIC. I have an extrememly poor view of all private insurance players to be perfectly honest.

Vultures.
Agreed. May be they are slow, but mostly they will settle the claim sooner or later. I have good experiences with LIC & National Insurance. Have mostly stuck with them. However, I found an identical clause with National Insurance Third Party liability too. Browse to http://niconline.in/ > Private Car> Liability.

Regards.

Last edited by saket77 : 23rd August 2014 at 17:41.
saket77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2014, 17:15   #33
BHPian
 
Piyadassi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: NCR Delhi
Posts: 52
Thanked: 63 Times
Default Re: Only 50% compensation to kin as biker wasn’t wearing a helmet

The ruling has reduced insurance to charity.

It is the duty of the law enforcers to ensure that people follow rules and not insurance companies. 'Vultures' as ebonho has rightly described, people who dance on others death.

Last edited by Piyadassi : 23rd August 2014 at 17:22.
Piyadassi is offline   (1) Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2014, 17:38   #34
Distinguished - BHPian
 
saket77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Ranchi
Posts: 3,192
Thanked: 4,254 Times
Default Re: Only 50% compensation to kin as biker wasn’t wearing a helmet

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piyadassi View Post
The ruling has reduced insurance to charity.
Please! Even general insurance will not pay one a dime if he/she is found messing up with the Motor Vehicles Act. Say driving without a licence, rash driving, underage driving, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piyadassi View Post
It is the duty of the law enforcers to ensure that people follow rules and not insurance companies. 'Vultures' as ebonho has rightly described, people who dance on others death.
Wrong analysis. It is not only about law. First think of your own life; law later. And it is not only the duty of law enforcers to make people follow the rules, but your own duty & responsibility too.

Say, if one sane person is granted immunity from law, will he go murdering people around? No way! So, if there is no punishment for no helmet in a city, still you should follow the basic rule of riding. Everything need not be written in the books.

When will we all wake up? Only when there is a law? There has to be a place for civic sense & common sense in this world too.
saket77 is offline   (2) Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2014, 17:44   #35
BHPian
 
adrian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Trivandrum
Posts: 752
Thanked: 587 Times
Default Re: Only 50% compensation to kin as biker wasn’t wearing a helmet

Severe injustice to the family of the deceased I would say. So, what will be the next excuse of the Insurance company for not dispersing the entire claim amount to the kith and kin of the person- "The vehicle the deceased was riding / driving does not meet the emission norms as prescribed by the law ?" These kind of money swindling from the part of Insurance companies should be nipped in the bud itself.
adrian is offline   (1) Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2014, 17:56   #36
Distinguished - BHPian
 
saket77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Ranchi
Posts: 3,192
Thanked: 4,254 Times
Default Re: Only 50% compensation to kin as biker wasn’t wearing a helmet

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrian View Post
So, what will be the next excuse of the Insurance company for not dispersing the entire claim amount to the kith and kin of the person- "The vehicle the deceased was riding / driving does not meet the emission norms as prescribed by the law ?"
Sorry, but your analogy of PUC simply does not equates to the risks associated with not wearing a helmet. And it is not the insurance company which has decided the case. It put a plea which the Judiciary upheld seeing merit in it.

Probably the support is pouring because the life is lost. Had the soul been alive, story would have been different. I condole the incident, but do not support the demand on top of negligence.

Last edited by saket77 : 23rd August 2014 at 17:58.
saket77 is offline   (1) Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2014, 18:07   #37
BHPian
 
adrian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Trivandrum
Posts: 752
Thanked: 587 Times
Default Re: Only 50% compensation to kin as biker wasn’t wearing a helmet

Quote:
Originally Posted by saket77 View Post
And it is not the insurance company which has decided the case. It put a plea which the Judiciary upheld seeing merit in it.
Dear friend, I am not against the helmet law. I ride my motorcycle fully geared up. The case was taken to the Judiciary by whom and for what reason. I don't think the Insurance company has taken the case to the Honorable Court as a policy matter to make every rider wear a helmet. They found it as a chance so they could quash the claim.
adrian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2014, 18:07   #38
BHPian
 
Piyadassi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: NCR Delhi
Posts: 52
Thanked: 63 Times
Default Re: Only 50% compensation to kin as biker wasn’t wearing a helmet

Quote:
Originally Posted by saket77 View Post
Please! Even general insurance will not pay one a dime if he/she is found messing up with the Motor Vehicles Act. Say driving without a licence, rash driving, underage driving, etc.
Then why 50%? Or anything at all? When according to MV Act he is clearly at fault. Is it not charity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by saket77 View Post
Wrong analysis.
Maybe. But nobody goes on road to get killed. Even if they don't gear up properly. Majority of the people, we all know, follow rules because of fear of fine and not death nor disability or for that matter they won't be paid any compensation in case of any mishap. This ruling gives a leeway to insurers which I don't think is good.
Piyadassi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2014, 18:12   #39
Senior - BHPian
 
Gansan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chennai
Posts: 3,428
Thanked: 877 Times
Default Re: Only 50% compensation to kin as biker wasn’t wearing a helmet

Good. I feel compensation should have been declined altogether and the judgment should be widely publicized.

Technically, the insurance companies should invoke the "indulging in dangerous activities" or whatever clause if the rider was without a helmet.

Whether the helmet would have prevented death or not is a moot point. The rider must comply with safety precautions first. What happens afterward is an act of God.
Gansan is offline   (1) Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2014, 18:22   #40
Distinguished - BHPian
 
saket77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Ranchi
Posts: 3,192
Thanked: 4,254 Times
Default Re: Only 50% compensation to kin as biker wasn’t wearing a helmet

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrian View Post
Dear friend, I am not against the helmet law. I ride my motorcycle fully geared up. The case was taken to the Judiciary by whom and for what reason. I don't think the Insurance company has taken the case to the Honorable Court as a policy matter to make every rider wear a helmet. They found it as a chance so they could quash the claim.
Dear Adrian, when I am on TBHP (rather than many other friends, colleagues & relatives) I safely assume by default that most people here would ride with a helmet and drive with the seat belts in place. Mostly there isn't an iota of doubt in this aspect. In fact, I am thankful to TBHP & the members here to instill the safety practices in me too.

Surely Insurance company did not go to the court to instill good riding practices in the country. And I believe none of the posts suggest that. It went to the court to save its buck. Just like the kin's family fought the case for their money, not for every third party victim in the country. The lost life was caught being the wrong side of the pre-stated law and was also responsible largely for the fate he suffered. Let me ask why did he not care about his dependents when he knew it is dangerous to ride without a helmet? Do not blame the other parties only because one survived, and the other did not pay the full claim amount. Look at the heightened carelessness of the third party, too. He could have survived if he had a helmet on his head after all! Even if not, the family would have got full compensation.
saket77 is offline   (2) Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2014, 18:30   #41
Distinguished - BHPian
 
saket77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Ranchi
Posts: 3,192
Thanked: 4,254 Times
Default Re: Only 50% compensation to kin as biker wasn’t wearing a helmet

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piyadassi View Post
Then why 50%? Or anything at all? When according to MV Act he is clearly at fault. Is it not charity?
Because the article on judgment says - "While the actual compensation worked out by the tribunal amounted to Rs 12.30 lakh, owing to the biker Jamil Shaikh's (23) contributory negligence, his family was awarded a compensation of Rs 6.15 lakh."

The court has held him partly responsible for his own death because he did not take proper precautions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piyadassi View Post
Maybe. But nobody goes on road to get killed. Even if they don't gear up properly. Majority of the people, we all know, follow rules because of fear of fine and not death nor disability or for that matter they won't be paid any compensation in case of any mishap. This ruling gives a leeway to insurers which I don't think is good.
This thought is suicidal; never mind the intentions.
saket77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2014, 18:49   #42
BHPian
 
adrian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Trivandrum
Posts: 752
Thanked: 587 Times
Default Re: Only 50% compensation to kin as biker wasn’t wearing a helmet

Quote:
Originally Posted by saket77 View Post
Look at the heightened carelessness of the third party, too. He could have survived if he had a helmet on his head after all! Even if not, the family would have got full compensation.
The whole thing would have been better if the rule was enforced while the person was very much alive. Why is it that the license of a person not wearing a helmet is not being cancelled ? Why is it that there is not any notification in the dailies that a person who does not wear a helmet will not get any accident insurance claim. It is because for a law to be properly imposed, the imposing authority should be perfect by all means. We are all paying road tax from which I believe half of the amount would suffice to provide good roads. If the law was imposed stringently then as we are assuming that the helmet would have saved his life, the person would have worn a helmet. With so much wrongs in the part of the enforcement, why the family who has lost, may be their only earning member suffer ? and to conclude do anyone in this forum believe that the current judgment will compel an idiot who is pushing his luck to wear a helmet ?

Last edited by adrian : 23rd August 2014 at 18:52. Reason: typo
adrian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2014, 19:39   #43
Senior - BHPian
 
sourabhzen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: GURGAON
Posts: 1,541
Thanked: 1,277 Times
Default Re: Only 50% compensation to kin as biker wasn’t wearing a helmet

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrian View Post
Severe injustice to the family of the deceased I would say. So, what will be the next excuse of the Insurance company for not dispersing the entire claim amount to the kith and kin of the person- "The vehicle the deceased was riding / driving does not meet the emission norms as prescribed by the law ?" These kind of money swindling from the part of Insurance companies should be nipped in the bud itself.
Severe injustice to his own family by the deceased at first place.

Insurance companies are here for profit and not for charity. They will continue to find excuses for not paying.

Not meeting the emission norms does not contribute to fatal accidents on the roads.

There are many examples of refused insurance claims for driving/riding on wrong side of the road, rash driving, over speeding and jumping red lights. I think this clauses should be highlighted/printed in bold and advertised too.
sourabhzen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2016, 15:02   #44
BHPian
 
virgopal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Bangalore,Mysore
Posts: 185
Thanked: 78 Times
Default Re: Only 50% compensation to kin as biker wasn’t wearing a helmet

HC cuts payment to accident victim as he was helmetless
Chennai: The Madras high court has slashed the accident compensation payable to a general manager of an export firm, citing the fact that he was not wearing a helmet at the time of the road accident and hence was guilty of 'contributory negligence.'
As a result, Mani Raj, general manager (operations) of a metal products company in MEPZ here, will get 35 lakh as compensation for grave injuries suffered in a road accident, instead of 35,50,000 as awarded by a motor accidents claims tribunal.
A division bench of Justice R Sudhakar and Justice S Vaidhyanathan said: "From the nature of the accident that took place, we are of the view that only due to the failure on the part of the claimant to wear a helmet, such grievous injuries had been caused. On such reasoning, we are inclined to interfere with the award of the tribunal and reduce a sum of 50,000 from the total compensation granted to him."
Mani Raj, riding a two-wheeler on November 16, 2007, was hit by a car while he was trying to cross the GST road from the Chitlapakkam main road side to enter the MEPZ near Tambaram.
Having suffered grievous injuries which left him permanently disabled, he sought 48 lakh as compensation. The tribunal awarded 35 lakh, against which both the insurance firm and Mani Raj himself moved the Madras high court.
At 51 years, he was not able to speak, not able to take food and was in a vegetative condition, his counsel argued.
The insurance company, however, said the car was coming at a moderate speed, but Mani Raj had suddenly crossed the road and in that process the accident occurred. It said the tribunal had failed to note that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the rider of the two-wheeler, who also failed to wear a helmet. He was guilty of contributory negligence, it said, arguing for reduction of compensation.
Finding merit in the insurance company's submissions, the bench said that without interfering with the compensation awarded by the tribunal under each head, it would reduce Rs 50,000 from the total compensation for the contributory negligence of Mani Raj, and also for the violation of Motor Vehicles Rules in respect of not wearing a helmet while riding the two-wheeler.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/c...w/51478493.cms
virgopal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2016, 16:47   #45
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: mumbai
Posts: 2,004
Thanked: 2,025 Times
Infractions: 0/1 (4)
Default Re: Only 50% compensation to kin as biker wasn’t wearing a helmet

I am quite surprised seeing people sympathizing for the deceased biker. I feel sad for his demise, but asking the insurance to foot his bill in spite of him not adhering to basic safety norms is not correct. As it is, if one drives drunk, drives wrong side, breaks traffic rules and then meets with an accident, be it in a car or bike, the insurance company is not liable to give him a single penny, voluntarily not putting on a helmet is akin to rash/dangerous driving. In fact the court should have offered the dead biker zero compensation. Moreover deducting only 50000 of a 35 lakh compensation for not wearing a helmet IMO is too less. Since the biker was rashly cutting across the road when he met with an accident his family should be asked to pay repair damages to the car owner.
apachelongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which Helmet? Tips on buying a good helmet Su-47 Motorbikes 2509 13th December 2017 14:27
Pillion wearing helmet = Criminals on bike, say Cops D4D Street Experiences 54 14th May 2015 00:00
Cops charge man for not wearing a helmet in his CAR??!! aargee Street Experiences 9 20th July 2012 17:46
Biker Show at Renegade biker outlet - Houston, TX shrini78 The Team-BHP Meet Section 0 17th March 2010 06:43
Wearing HELMET WHILE U RIDE Surprise Motorbikes 53 8th April 2007 23:54


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 18:17.

Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Team-BHP.com
Proudly powered by E2E Networks