[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

The article says the tribunal ruled the death was a result of rash and negligent driving.

I don’t know of any legislative system anywhere in the world that you can insure yourself against bringing harm to others due to your own irresponsible behaviour.

I understand you've lived in India and know what kind of power a head constable has over the average citizen. Rash and negligent driving is a catch all term that means nothing, it just shows you've got influence to get a favourable ruling.

The issue is the deceased hitching a ride, not insurance against rash driving.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Of course, whether the cop had muscled his way into getting a lift is a bit of an unknown, but I don’t think that takes away responsibility from the driver at all. If you behave stupidly, you might be required to face the consequences of your behaviour.

Giving somebody a lift does not change that.
Jeroen

The whole case exists just for the reason that the deceased was a police officer, the case would have gone nowhere otherwise. You deserve nothing if you force someone to give you a ride and end up injured or dead.

The cop shouldn't have been in the van on official travel, if he commandeered the van, then it's a risk he signed up for. This seems to be a case of personal travel, his family should be entitled to nothing, other than having their compensation used to make good the van driver's damage and legal fees.

[honeybee]

Originally Posted by ninjatalli

A question more to the experts on insurance than all - is this a case of the insurer (/New India Insurance) changing the situation to not be responsible to do the payout to the passenger and instead pushing the liability on to the van owner?

I feel there is a next step play where the van owner family would fight this verdict at a higher court.

Just outof curiosity, I checked the verdict again and also checked the type of policy mentioned, "private car liability only", which we generally refer to as third party cover.

Look at point 4 in the screenshot:


The policy does not cover passengers who had no reason to be in the vehicle, i.e. gratuitous passengers.

Now, we do not know exactly how the policy of the vwhicle in question was termed, but it could have this exclusion that the MAT / insurance company may have relied upon.


Secondly, the MAT has referred to the FIR to conclude the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner, and not drawn this conclusion out of thin air. It's time one tries to understand the legal process instead of making generalizations.

Cops cannot commandeer someone's peraonal vehicle just like that. Even in case of an emergency such as cops trying to follow any criminals or suspects, a private citizen may deny use of his or her personal vehicle.

The only time cops can do so, IIRC is during election times, on specific orders of a competent authority like the DM or collector.

Also the FIR was most likely registered on the basis of situational evidence and eyewitness accounts. It was not challenged before any court of law, ao it is deemed that the FIR is correct and accurate. For someone to call the FIR as falsified, this has to be done with evidence and in a court, not through random and arbitrary generalization on a social forum.

So let's focus on the issue at hand, understanding the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, rather than venting out unsubstantiated personal frustrations.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by honeybee

Just outof curiosity, I checked the verdict again and also checked the type of policy mentioned, "private car liability only", which we generally refer to as third party cover.


The only time cops can do so, IIRC is during election times, on specific orders of a competent authority like the DM or collector.

Also the FIR was most likely registered on the basis of situational evidence and eyewitness accounts. It was not challenged before any court of law, ao it is deemed that the FIR is correct and accurate. For someone to call the FIR as falsified, this has to be done with evidence and in a court, not through random and arbitrary generalization on a social forum.

So let's focus on the issue at hand, understanding the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, rather than venting out unsubstantiated personal frustrations.

Thanks for looking that up. Let’s not forget this van turned turtle. Whereas that could be just bad luck, it is more likely to be the result of eh, rash driving. And to you point, this doesn’t appear to be challenged.

Irrespective of what happened here exactly, it is good to understand what your insurance would or would not cover when it comes to your passengers. Be that family, friends, hitch hikers or cops.

Here in Europe your average car insurance will not cover anything other than cost to the vehicles involved. You will need to take a special 3rd party passenger liability insurance to have your passengers, and yourself insured against for instance medical cost due to the accident, compensation in case of death and or loss of income etc.

But if you cause the accident due to harsh and irresponsible driving it is very likely that the insurance company won’t pay up. Those passenger will have a personal claim on the driver.

When you find yourself driving a car abroad make sure you understand how it is insured and what kind of liability might still be with you as the driver over and above the direct damage to involved cars and or other properties. Truth be told when there is personal injury involved the cost can spiral out of control quit equickly. A few thousand euro damage to the cars and a hospital Bill of fifty thousand euro.

It’s one of the reason you should be weary of picking up hitch hikers unless you are properly insured.

I have given quite the odd cop a lift in India. And a few other countries too. My wife grew up in Barbados West Indies. All cops were always hitching rides across the islands. Quite normal actually. They would never commandeer a vehicle. Just holding up their thumb as they walk along the road.

I spend 8 weeks hitch hiking through the USA in the early 80’s. In those days hitch hiking was still very normal. Nobody checked their insurance in-house days.

Jeroen

[sarathlal]

Originally Posted by honeybee

So let's focus on the issue at hand, understanding the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, rather than ...

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Irrespective of what happened here exactly, it is good to understand what your insurance would or would not cover when it comes to your passengers. Be that family, friends, hitch hikers or cops.

Precisely the whole reason for bringing this up. Was quite startled to realise the gravity of the situation and the consequences that we all are running through daily. And much more scarier of the fact that was totally unaware of such scenarios.

[GTO]

Mod Note: Thread moved to Street Experiences. Thanks for sharing!

[tazmaan]

Without reading the whole judgement it's difficult to understand this particular case. But what got my attention is 65 lacs of compensation. Can this amount now be taken as a benchmark for people who lose their loved ones in say a Bus accident or taxi accident. Who pays for it is secondary (Owner of the vehicle or insurance).

Being a solo traveller and having driven across India, I have been asked to give lifts to Cops several times, Once from Udaipur to Jaipur. They usually wait at the toll booths and the attendant would simply identify cars with only the driver and ask the cop to sit in it. I must say most of them were humble in uniform and always offers tea at the drop point. During Udiapur to Jaipur trip my trip was even toll free and I am just lucky nothing happened reading such verdicts.

[honeybee]

Originally Posted by tazmaan

... But what got my attention is 65 lacs of compensation. Can this amount now be taken as a benchmark for people who lose their loved ones in say a Bus accident or taxi accident. Who pays for it is secondary (Owner of the vehicle or insurance).

...

The compensation is usually calculated based on the economic and emotional loss and then if the party contributed to the accident or not.

There have been instances where substantially higher sums have been paid out to victims or their kin, from the insurance company or the owner (inncluding state transport department).

Yes, the kin of the victims can file a case for higher compensation if the standard insurance payout is deemed inadequate.

[srini1785]

I am not able to understand how a learned court has said that car owner / driver is liable for paying compensation to a passenger. How the court decided that it was rash driving?. What happened to the driver / owner ?. Is he/she still alive and only the passenger is dead?. So while all this questions linger, one thing that surprised me was 65L compensation. How was that fixed?. Even for police personnel who die in the line of duty the compensation is not that high. Probably a pension to the spouse or a job to the eligible son/ daughter and that's it.

Its judgments like these that cast serious doubts on courts and compel public to just settle everything out of court.

PS : One of my known acquaintances, a driver, caused death of a person in a road accident, Ill luck is what caused it. Court ordered a compensation of 25000.00 and a suspended jail term. That was some years back. Has the law changed?. or is it because its a cop?.

[honeybee]

Originally Posted by srini1785

I am not able to understand how a learned court has said that car owner / driver is liable for paying compensation to a passenger. How the court decided that it was rash driving?. What happened to the driver / owner ?. Is he/she still alive and only the passenger is dead?. So while all this questions linger, one thing that surprised me was 65L compensation. How was that fixed?. Even for police personnel who die in the line of duty the compensation is not that high. Probably a pension to the spouse or a job to the eligible son/ daughter and that's it.

Its judgments like these that cast serious doubts on courts and compel public to just settle everything out of court.

PS : One of my known acquaintances, a driver, caused death of a person in a road accident, Ill luck is what caused it. Court ordered a compensation of 25000.00 and a suspended jail term. That was some years back. Has the law changed?. or is it because its a cop?.

More often than not, we rely on half true, incomplete media reports to make sweeping and often inaccurate generalizations.

At least in this case the media report has accurately described how the MAT arrived at the decision. At the risk of repeating myself,

1. How did the court decide it was rash driving?
The court relied on the FIR filed after the accident, the available evidence, eyewitness statements etc to conclude it was a case of rash and negligent driving. If the owner doesn't agree with it, he could have challenged the FIR and stated his version of the story. Perhaps the owner did not challenge the FIR or perhaps the evidence he cited was weak and so the court did not accept his version of the story. It is far unlikely that the judge had a dream like in a movie that played back the accident like a flashback.

2. What happened to the driver / owner?: This question has no bearing to the outcome of the case. The rash and negligent driving does not have to cause death of the driver or owner always. So it is possible the driver or the owner comes out of an accident without a scratch but still be charged for rash and negligent driving. Without taking into account philosophical arguments such as "usska time aya tha, lekin isska nahi aya tha", this question can be set aside as irrelevant. If the owner perished in the accident, or separately, his legal heirs will be liable to pay.

3. 65 L compensation: The amount of compensation is arrived at considering loss of income / means of livelihood (accounting for the present salary drawn, and probabilities of future earnings including increments etc) and emotional loss to the family members minus any contributory negligence on the part of the victim. It would be unwise to compare this value with something as totally irrelevant as death in the line of duty. There are well established rules to award compensation to cops who die in the line of duty, unlike in case of a road accident. So let us not compare apples with oranges.

Finally, it is the ignorance of the population at large that creates an impression that the system doesn't work. If only people took the time to learn how the system works...

[srini1785]

^^

IANAL but can you quote relevant sections of IPC under which this judgment was passed?. What happens now if the owner says the entire blame is on the driver who was driving the vehicle? assuming that these are two different people. What happens if the owner / driver is unable to pay or declares bankruptcy?. IMO, the court could have as well sentenced the driver/owner to life imprisonment for murder instead of passing this judgment.

PS : Under section 279 IPC " “Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with im*prisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”

[landcruiser123]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

The article says the tribunal ruled the death was a result of rash and negligent driving.

I don’t know of any legislative system anywhere in the world that you can insure yourself against bringing harm to others due to your own irresponsible behaviour.

Okay, a lot of missing details for sure. Here's what I see: The contentious issue is the 'gratuitous passenger.' The insurance company seems to have used that clause to its advantage and put the owner of the bus on the hook. Rash driving is a reason associated with any accident in India, especially when the collision occurs between a small and large vehicle, irrespective of who is at fault.

IMHO, unless rash-driving (or drunk driving) is proven, the insurance company is on the hook.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by landcruiser123

Okay, a lot of missing details for sure. Here's what I see: The contentious issue is the 'gratuitous passenger.' The insurance company seems to have used that clause to its advantage and put the owner of the bus on the hook. Rash driving is a reason associated with any accident in India, especially when the collision occurs between a small and large vehicle, irrespective of who is at fault.

IMHO, unless rash-driving (or drunk driving) is proven, the insurance company is on the hook.

The car went turtle, not likely to happen when you drive cautiously. Neither was, as far as we know, the rash driving challenged.

Irrespective, it illustrates the need to understand how you are insured!


Jeroen

[honeybee]

Originally Posted by srini1785

... What happens now if the owner says the entire blame is on the driver who was driving the vehicle? assuming that these are two different people. What happens if the owner / driver is unable to pay or declares bankruptcy?.
...

In case of a bankruptcy, the owner may go to jail as obviously he is unable to pay.

As for the rest of the questions, if you read the news report of the judgement carefully, you will notice that the MAT has ordered the insurance company to make the payment to the victim's family, and recover the same from the owner.

If the owner wants to recover it from the driver, it is a separate matter altogether, where the owner can file a separate case for recovery from the driver.

[srini1785]

Originally Posted by honeybee

In case of a bankruptcy, the owner may go to jail as obviously he is unable to pay.

As for the rest of the questions, if you read the news report of the judgement carefully, you will notice that the MAT has ordered the insurance company to make the payment to the victim's family, and recover the same from the owner.

If the owner wants to recover it from the driver, it is a separate matter altogether, where the owner can file a separate case for recovery from the driver.

Still the basic section of IPC under which this judgment was passed remains unanswered. The Hon Supreme court of India in one of its order had said that 2 years imprisonment is inadequate punishment for rash driving leading to death.

Read : https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/53881314.cms

As far as i know, insurance company are liable only up to the insured value of life even in case of accidents. I may be wrong too. What baffles me is why the court in all its wisdom decided to hand over a monitory demand notice instead of passing a prison sentence. While I would be happy to see the moron who caused the death behind bars even for life, i fail to understand the compensation angle to the case. Its well known that cops and courts go hand in hand in some cases. I hope that its not the case here. I hope the owner goes to higher court. Looks like plain intimidation to me.

[antz.bin]

Originally Posted by landcruiser123

IMHO, unless rash-driving (or drunk driving) is proven, the insurance company is on the hook.

In India, it's always 'Rash and Negligent Driving'.

It was the same in my case. In my case, the affected party
1. was a 3rd party road user
2. Survived

So I don't have jail time against my name. Its just easier to accept that you were wrong since we really don't have any evidence to the contrary.

We can have dashcams on cars but what to do on a motorcycle? The penalties were much smaller back in 2010, but it's not the case now.