Team-BHP - Only 50% compensation to kin as biker wasn’t wearing a helmet

Source TOI

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/c...w/40310481.cms

Quote:

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on Wednesday halved the compensation to be paid to the kin of a biker who died on being hit by a cab in 2009, after it found he was not wearing a helmet at the time of the mishap. 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 fleet cab company and the insurance firm will additionally have to pay Rs 2.30 lakh in interest.

Observing that the cab driver was not solely responsible for the accident , the tribunal said, "The unfortunate death of the deceased must be attributed to the non-wearing of a protective headgear by him, as his death has been found to have been caused by haemorrhage and shock due to head injury. The deceased should be held to have definitely contributed to his death by not wearing protective headgear while riding a motorcycle on a public road."

Very good decision by the tribunal. I feel sorry for his family. This information needs to reach the length and breadth of this country. The family members should now encourage/insist on safety measures to be adopted while using the road; be it a pedestrian, 2/4 wheeler, LCV or heavy vehicles!!

If the cab driver wasn't found to be rash, then there shouldn't have been any compensation.

Contributory negligence is a fairly standard practice followed while awarding compensation in Motor Vehicle Accident cases.

I read of a bus passenger who kept his hand out of the window , and fractured his hand in an accident.The tribunal lowered his compensation amount, as he too was responsible for the fracture.

I think this approach is fair and does reduce the cost of third party insurance. If full compensation were to be awarded, that would have an impact on the third party insurance premiums.

I hope the media makes a big fuss about it, so that all the idiots come to know of one of the consequences of not wearing a helmet.

But what's the use? Most people will still believe that nothing will ever happen to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by StepUP! (Post 3508642)

The tribunal observed that the FIR clearly pointed to rash and negligent driving on the part of the cab driver. "I must, therefore, hold that the accident in question was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending motor taxi and non-wearing of protective headgear by the deceased in breach of the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act," the tribunal said.

This part, I don't like. FIR will ALWAYS blame the bigger vehicle for rash and negligent driving, irrespective of whose fault it was.

Not to invite wrath of the fellow BHPians but would wearing an helmet have saved the life of the deceased?. I am not advocating no usage of helmet but the impact could have killed the biker even with the helmet on. There have been instances where such a scenario has happened. Partly the traffic authorities are to be blamed too who blatantly allow bikers without helmets on specific days and on some days nab the offenders. Isnt the system too partially responsible for the biker to travel without helmet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghodlur (Post 3508844)

Not to invite wrath of the fellow BHPians but would wearing an helmet have saved the life of the deceased?. I am not advocating no usage of helmet but the impact could have killed the biker even with the helmet on. There have been instances where such a scenario has happened. Partly the traffic authorities are to be blamed too who blatantly allow bikers without helmets on specific days and on some days nab the offenders. Isnt the system too partially responsible for the biker to travel without helmet?

'Could have' is not the same as 'definitely have', and the biker 'could have' possibly lived to tell the difference, IF he was wearing a helmet. Maybe not in this particular case, but there are lots of cases where two-wheeler riders have died due to head injuries, with non-fatal, minor or sometimes no injuries to any other body part.

Helmets may not guarantee survival in all cases, but their absence heightens risk of a fatal head-injury (or a non-fatal maiming) manifold, esp. in a country like ours where road infrastructure is so biker-unfriendly (not saying that its friendliness increases with the number of wheels:D). It's time we put the whole 'Would a helmet make any difference?' debate to rest. Riding without a helmet is like batting without a guard (you know which one). If the batsman then gets 'hit', will you blame the bowler for the 'damage'?

In my opinion, "roads are bad, systems are broken etc. etc." are all the more reason to be doubly careful of one's well-being. If danger is high, it's common sense to be better prepared, not worse. To borrow a cliche (and twist it for relevance:)), "Before you ask what the systems is doing to protect you, ask yourself what you're doing to protect your own head". Pun definitely intended!

Without getting into merits of what the biker did, it seems that the cab rear-ended the bike when it stopped suddenly (as per some of the sketchy details in the report). Therefore, cab guy looks more at fault.

In my driving experience of almost a decade, I have found cabbies to be the worst tailgaters on the road. They will tailgate each and every damn thing on the road (doesn't matter whether it's a truck, a bus, a car or even a bike :Frustrati).

Given that the biker had already paid the ultimate price (for the mistake of not wearing helmet), the tribunal could have been more considerate towards the family of the deceased (more so, when majority of the blame for accident lies with the cab driver).

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghodlur (Post 3508844)

Partly the traffic authorities are to be blamed too who blatantly allow bikers without helmets on specific days and on some days nab the offenders. Isnt the system too partially responsible for the biker to travel without helmet?

No, the system is not responsible. Helmet is to be worn for your own safety, not for escaping police checks. So, checks or not, helmet is a must for all 2 wheeler riders and pillions. Why would one need policing for this simple affair?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotham_City (Post 3508893)

Absolutely in support of above post. I read on team-bhp itself that it is ALWAYS the fault of the person who hits from rear. Why is nothing being said about that?

If the person wore helmet and yet died, would the tribunal penalize the helmet makers as well? In case of living victims, such discount in compensation would make example. But when the victim is no more able to tell his side of the story because he is dead, making an example out of him is too much.

Good decision

Quote:

Originally Posted by ani_meher (Post 3508929)

Absolutely in support of above post. I read on team-bhp itself that it is ALWAYS the fault of the person who hits from rear. Why is nothing being said about that?

That's why the compensation that the Cab company will pay.

If the Victim was wearing helmet, full compensation would have been given & not half as the tribunal did.

How was the initial compensation arrived? 12.30L invested at 8% p.a. - usual bank fd rate post tax - will give about 8k per month. The victim was earning 8k per month, so this amount was a fair compensation for the salary (not the person).

Now due to high-stand of making an example out of a dead person, only because the person was not wearing a 500rs helmet, the compensation is reduced by half, and the income per month is only 4k.

Even if this compensation is announced, it is not an easy task to actually get it. There are lawyers that make money solely by making sure people get their promised compensation, eating a cut in between. I hope the family goes to upper court, but it will be a costly battle.

Additionally, this gives a new idea for RTO ads.

Fine for not wearing helmet:
If you are alive: Rs.100
If you are dead in accident: Rs.6,15,000.