[Technocrat]

We need to get away from the mentality that we have when it comes to accidents in India

1) That the bigger vehicle is always at fault.

I remember few years back there was a similar accident between a Cab & Truck. Obviously all blame went to Truck driver, the Big catch, Cab was on wrong side of the road running opposite the traffic flow

This is not to say that the Cab in this incident was not at fault, i don't think anybody is debating that.

2) That helmet rule implementation is all a ploy to make money by Police & Helmet companies

This is the most ridiculous argument that i have heard many people saying. I wont even try to put sense, instead for all those who think this way, wear a helmet, it will save you a fine & save your life.

[honeybee]

Something interesting
http://www.vakilno1.com/legal-faq/mo...egligence.html

[sgiitk]

Excellent judgement. It should be publicised both for educating the public and also as a warning.

[riteshritesh]

They should have not given any compensation at all. By breaking a law( not wearing a helmet), the rider is totally at fault. The resultant actions are on account of his own deed of not following the law. Our courts get all emotional and pass emotion based judgements.

And to the poster who said 'It is the person banging from behind's fault' , can you point me to those threads? I found this statement really shocking.

[Technocrat]

Originally Posted by riteshritesh

And to the poster who said 'It is the person banging from behind's fault' , can you point me to those threads? I found this statement really shocking.

That is correct, the fault always lies with the vehicle behind as it can see the movement of the vehicle in front. It is your responsibility to monitor & maintain a safe distance with the vehicle in front. Not sure if there is any written rule in India but it is so in most countries.

[sgiitk]

Originally Posted by riteshritesh

They should have not given any compensation at all. By breaking a law( not wearing a helmet), the rider is totally at fault. The resultant actions are on account of his own deed of not following the law. Our courts get all emotional and pass emotion based judgements.

In the UK in the 1970's the norm was 33%, since the plea was that you also contributed (not 100%) to your misfortune.

[ani_meher]

@riteshritesh: As post above says, it is always a fault of the rear ender. Many posts exist on team bhp.

Not wearing a helmet is not a criminal offense,but a life taking accident is. A life is lost, and we are bickering about how cheap it was because of no plastic tin? We don't know at what speeds it occurred, what financial impact it had on the victim's family.

The tone of some posts here suggests that they would be happy only if the courts ordered the victim's family to pay up the repair cost to the Indica that banged the bike.

EDIT: Wonder what would happen if the tribunal would cancel all the compensation based on this ground alone, as some posts are hinting. Sadistic people would be hunting the helmet-less riders with no fear!

[ebonho]

Originally Posted by ani_meher

@riteshritesh: As post above says, it is always a fault of the rear ender. Many posts exist on team bhp.

Not wearing a helmet is not a criminal offense,but a life taking accident is. A life is lost, and we are bickering about how cheap it was because of no plastic tin? We don't know at what speeds it occurred, what financial impact it had on the victim's family.

The tone of some posts here suggests that they would be happy only if the courts ordered the victim's family to pay up the repair cost to the Indica that banged the bike.

EDIT: Wonder what would happen if the tribunal would cancel all the compensation based on this ground alone, as some posts are hinting. Sadistic people would be hunting the helmet-less riders with no fear!

I agree with you 100%.

I am frankly surprised at the pontificatory tone of many of the posts here.

Sad.

[saket77]

Many riders do not wear a helmet while riding saying that it is their life they are risking, so why authorities/ police should bother. I have particularly seen this in Maharashtra and this article hints at the same. I am particularly disturbed by this fact in the article:

The State government had first made it compulsory for two-wheeler riders (more than 50cc) to wear helmets on State or National Highways (outside municipal limits). The rule was then challenged in a Public Interest Litigation by the students of Symbiosis Law School.

If educated people take such steps, then either you have placed too much trust on your almighty, or are a firm believer in re-incarnation. Or, you don't care for your own life and for your dependents. To me, the last one looks most certain out of the three.

Coming back to the classic argument of 'my life, my risk', I would say fine. But what about the other people who may suffer because XYZ was not wearing a helmet and died because your car bumped his bike/ scooter from behind or any other way. Sympathies for the dead, but the rider could have survived if he was wearing a helmet. Compensation and all are for the learned Courts to decide, but what misery & anxiety it brings to the other guy involved? Is he to suffer only because he survived because he was wearing a helmet or was in a car? Yes, banging may be his mistake entirely (that is another subject of debate) but then the other guy might have survived if he was having a helmet on his head.

Ready for any brickbats that come my way for this post, but riding without helmet is breaking the law, and breaking the law is a crime. I wear it for my safety, do hell with the law.

Edit: Even my wife wears a helmet every time she is a pillion on my bike, and has to compulsorily put on the seatbelts when in the car. This though, as a law is still not enforceable in our state.

[ebonho]

I do not know where this accident happened or whether wearing a helmet was law in that place.

If it was law, then not wearing one would be construed as an unlawful act.

If not, then no unlawful act was committed. Period. There are no blanket laws of helmet usage across the country, and the law differs from state to state, city to city, and even area to area within a city.

I must stress here that in most countries, the onus of avoidance of an accident lies on the guy behind in cases of rear ending. EVEN if the person in front suddenly swerves or brakes without due warning (IF it can be proven), the larger part of the legal responsibility fall on the shoulder of the one behind. If it comes to one person's word against the other, barring voluntary non-hostile witness accounts, the full blame lies on the person who hits from behind.

This smacks of underhand collusion between the powerful and oftentimes extremely dishonest and unethical Insurance lobby and dirty bought out officials.

[saket77]

Originally Posted by ebonho

There are no blanket laws of helmet usage across the country, and the law differs from state to state, city to city, and even area to area within a city.

True. Although Section 129 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does stipulate wearing an ISI marked helmet, but State Govt. have the luxury not make it mandatory. In my personal opinion, quite shockingly.

Originally Posted by ebonho

I must stress here that in most countries, the onus of avoidance of an accident lies on the guy behind in cases of rear ending. EVEN if the person in front suddenly swerves or brakes without due warning (IF it can be proven), the larger part of the legal responsibility fall on the shoulder of the one behind. If it comes to one person's word against the other, barring voluntary non-hostile witness accounts, the full blame lies on the person who hits from behind.

It is not only about fixing responsibility of an accident on any particular guy; its more about who suffers actually. In this case, the person driving the car who rear ended the rider had to suffer for a while fighting the case, mental agony etc, but the family & dependents of the lost life would suffer permanently. Fixing responsibility for the loss is not going to help them, except may be for some financial benevolence.

Don't know on whom the onus lies to avoid the accident, but all I know that if the guy had the protective gear on his head, at the best, he would have been alive; and at the worst, the family would have gotten full compensation.

And one does not care for his own life or about his dependents, I don't know what else one can care for.

Regards,
Saket

[ebonho]

Originally Posted by saket77

Fixing responsibility for the loss is not going to help them, except may be for some financial benevolence.

Don't know on whom the onus lies to avoid the accident, but all I know that if the guy had the protective gear on his head, at the best, he would have been alive; and at the worst, the family would have gotten full compensation.

And one does not care for his own life or about his dependents, I don't know what else one can care for.

Regards,
Saket

I agree with the premise that while riding a two wheeler one should wear a helmet.

But that's not what this thread is about.

This thread is about an Insurance company not honoring a claim. And collusion fom the authorities.

"Financial benevolnece" as you put it is why customers buy insurance in the first place. The Insurance companies are doing us no favors.

Because for each instance of financial benevolence they are expected to dole out, they enjoy hundreds of thousands of lacs of cases of financial benevolence from our side, year on year.

This is about a big corporate hand in glove with bought out officials shafting a common man. Even after he is dead.

This is not some copybook teaching of a lesson and setting of a precedent in some Utopian grander scheme of things for the future of the ignorant masses.

I call BS when I see it buddy.

And this case is a pile that is still steaming.

[saket77]

Originally Posted by ebonho

"Financial benevolnece" as you put it is why customers buy insurance in the first place. The Insurance companies are doing us no favors. Because for each instance of financial benevolence they are expected to dole out, they enjoy hundreds of thousands of lacs of cases of financial benevolence from our side, year on year.

Sure thing. There is nothing like free lunch in this world.

Originally Posted by ebonho

This is about a big corporate hand in glove with bought out officials shafting a common man. Even after he is dead.

Agree to it too, but the common man should have been more responsible towards his family too. He should have known that it is dangerous to ride without a helmet.

May be there is (and will be) difference in our opinion. Respect yours and stand by mine.

Regards,
Saket

[ebonho]

Originally Posted by saket77

Agree to it too, but the common man should have been more responsible towards his family too. He should have known that it is dangerous to ride without a helmet.

Not denying that.

But how does that absolve the Insurance company and the tribunal officials who are being lauded here?

[saket77]

I convey my heartfelt condolences on the bereavement, but still feel that the family should consider themselves lucky for getting anything at all.

But to answer your question:

Originally Posted by ebonho

But how does that absolve the Insurance company and the tribunal officials who are being lauded here?

I had to take a close look into Bharti Axa's 3rd party motor insurance liability in detail and here is something which will be interesting to note (some extracts):

1. Section II - Liability to Third Parties:

death of or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the
vehicle (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward) but
except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor
Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of the employment of such person by the insured.

2. The Company may at its own option
a) arrange for representation at any Inquest or Fatal Inquiry in respect of
any death which may be the subject of indemnity under this Policy
and
b) undertake the defense of proceedings in any Court of Law in respect of
any act or alleged offence causing or relating to any event which may be
the subject of indemnity under this Policy.

Now, here is the twist. The policy wording says that the 3rd party should be adhering to the Motor Vehicles Act - which stipulates wearing a helmet while riding a two wheeler under Section 129. If State Govt is not adhering to the norms laid out by the Act, then it is a different story altogether. The fact is clearly stated that the 3rd party has to be in adherence to the Motor Vehicles Act.

I quoted the second point only to highlight the fact that the insurance company has reserved its right to contest a case in the court of law if it sees merit into it.

Regards,
Saket

Edit: Source of quoted provision from Bharti Axa: http://www.bharti-axagi.co.in/sites/...y-wordings.pdf