Re: Co-passenger dies, car insurance expired - Advice? Quote:
Originally Posted by chevyman The deceased person's (Mr. Rao) family has filed a case under Sec. 304 A on my father. They have also filed another insurance case in insurance tribunal.
Car's insurance had expired a few days before the accident. Car is owned by my brother-in-law.
Mr. Rao's wife (encouraged by her relatives) has filed an insurance claim of Rs. 50 lakhs. Since the car insurance had expired, will my father have to pay that amount? Already a part of his retirement benefits (Govt. employee, retired in January 2014) have been blocked due to that. Since the deceased person himself was a Govt employee and was on official duty, can my father be freed of the liability? |
Sorry to hear about the accident. Here is my take on the whole issue. Apologies in advance if I sound a little impolite as I've been trying to look at it objectively from a third person view.
Let us forget about the expired insurance for a minute since that would in no way change whether the victim is eligible for compensation. Technically, any injury or death in a motor accident is eligible for compensation, especially if the victim was in no way responsible for the accident. Considering your father's colleague who passed away was a passenger in the car and was in no way responsible for the accident, his family is eligible for compensation in this regard.
The compensation needs to be paid by the insurance company with whom the car is insured. In case of an expired policy or a situation that voids the insurance (even in case of policy still being valid) like the driver not in possession of a valid license, the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation. Hence the driver (your father) and the owner (your brother-in-law) are liable to pay the compensation. It is not victim's fault that the car didn't have a valid insurance and hence it shouldn't affect his family in any way when it comes to the compensation. The mistake that can be attributed against your father is that he violated the rule by taking a car without a valid insurance on the road. The reason we have that rule is to ensure that a victim doesn't suffer since the driver/owner is not able to compensate adequately as determined by the tribunal.
Coming to the amount asked by the victim's family, it is again determined by the claims tribunal regarding the compensation that needs to be awarded. In most cases, the tribunal would bring down this amount to a much lower amount, depending on how good your lawyer is. However, most cases get settled after years and the compensation would also have an interest component that could be as big, if the case drags on for years. Please note that the MACT courts are unlikely to sympathize with the expired insurance and hence it might not be easy for your lawyer. Ensure you try to get a very good lawyer to get you out of the mess. Some of the justifications for the 50 lakhs like the loss of future income to the family could be brought down if the government has policy in place to handle death of an employee while in service.
From my understanding, your father and brother-in-law would be made liable to pay compensation, though the amount might be lower than what they filed for. Quote:
Originally Posted by sudev IMHO unless deliberate act of criminality and intent is proved there could be no case under 304A |
Isn't 304A referring to "causing death by negligence"?
From my understanding, if there is no deliberate act of criminality and intent, it wouldn't qualify for 302 but could still qualify for 304A if it can be established that there was negligent or rash driving involved. I'm not sure if it follows "guilty unless proven innocent" or the "innocent unless proven guilty" track. If it is latter, the victim's family would need to prove the negligent driving and an expired insurance alone might not be sufficient to do so. If it was a high speed crash, it could be tried under 304A.
Chevyman,
Does the FIR for the accident mention anything about rash driving or high speed driving? If there is no indication of rash or negligent driving as per the FIR, I don't think 304A would stand.
Last edited by zenren : 14th March 2015 at 17:56.
|