Clearing up the principle of accountability on the road and therefore making it clear that legal heirs of an individual who dies in a motor vehicle accident owing his or her own rash and negligent driving would not be entitled to compensation that would be paid off by the insurance company, Supreme Court of India has made its position clear by passing a land mark ruling in this respect. The landmark ruling through a bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan has a vital precedent since one cannot take the advantage of his/her detrimental act even when brought under a post-mortem claim.
The case in the crux of this momentous ruling was that of the unfortunate death of N.S. Ravisha, which happened on June 18, 2014. The driver Ravisha was a Fiat Linea to Arasikere town on the day he was carrying family members with him to the outing in Mallasandra village. Police reports and other investigations proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accident happened because Ravisha was driving the vehicle at high speed, recklessly and in total disregard of the laid down traffic requirements. He eventually lost control of the car causing overturning, and he instantly died due to the injuries he had.
In the aftermath of this tragedy, the wife, the son, and the parents of Ravisha filed a suit against the United India Insurance Company to demand a good deal of compensation, which was in the form of 80 lakh rupees. They based their claim over the fact that Ravisha is a busy and well-paying contractor who is the head of the family in terms of money power. The claim was however strongly denied by both Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) and later by Karnataka High Court. The decision of the High Court that was later upheld in the Supreme Court was essentially anchored on the premise that the accident was entirely a result of Ravisha alone doing something that was rash and negligent.
The Principle Against Profiting of One Own Wrong
The essence of the jurisprudence argument consisted of a so-called self-tortfeasor- a person, whose harmful actions to herself resulted in personal injury or death. The reasoning of the High Court was very obvious: legal beneficiaries could not claim compensation against a death that was directly caused by the person whose act was base, in other words, the person who caused the accident through his fault. In order to sanction such a claim, observed the court, would be a direct subversion of an old rule of law to be against the right of no man or his heirs to receive any benefit out of his own iniquity or negligence.
In enforcing the decision of the lower court, the Supreme Court emphasized that the whole idea behind insurance is to provide coverage against unpredictable and sad events and not to assure one against irresponsible or negligent actions. The decision clearly elaborated that one should drive attentively and with the right speed and should never demonstrate blatant style in utter disregard of traffic laws because that amounts to gross form of negligence that, in effect, can override the right of heirs to claim compensation under an insurance company as mandated in the Motor Vehicles Act.
Wide Reaching Consequences to both Drivers and Insurers
The decision is of huge significance to motor vehicle policyholders and insurance firms in the country. To those people that own motor insurances, it is a stern and absolute truth that driving responsibly and conscientiously following all traffic rules is of paramount essence. It also states clearly the extent of motor insurance cover especially in the case where criminal intent on the part of the insured party causes a fatal consequence. In the judgment it is stressed that simply buying a motor insurance cover does not exempt a person of personal responsibility of his/her actions whilst driving. This time, more than ever, it is directly the driver who is responsible in the consequences of his folly, even in case of his own execution.
This decision is expected to pin a new age of rigorous investigations of claims that materialize on fatal accidents to insurance service providers. In the past, it is possible that there were honest players in the insurance industry that were agreeing to compensation claims in some fatal accidents without necessarily carrying out a thorough study on the exact culpability issue. This judgment is however conclusive in the sense that in case the deceased is found to be obviously really the so called tort-feasor, the insurer does not have any obligation to pay compensation. This will probably promote more thorough, fact-based assessment of claims related to accidents, and it can have an effect that causes harder underwriting of new policies. The insurance companies may also turn somewhat restrictive in evaluating claims on the occurrence of which the exact cause of the accident is disputed, and the requirements to accompany the claim with a set of supporting materials like the official police report (FIR), verifiable documents on driving qualification, and documents to confirm that the car was used in such a way that did not violate the rules are likely to increase as well.
Enforcement of Law and advocacy of road safety
Moreover, the ruling of the Supreme Court entrenches the ancient doctrine of law, such as the rule that nobody can derive profit by his or her wrong ( ex turpi causa non oritur actio). The decision also implicitly alluded to the fact that by operating a vehicle, the driver, who is a borrower, practically enters into a state of being the owner as far as liability is concerned, which means that borrowing a vehicle does not necessarily demand a borrower to be entitled to compensation in case he/she is proved guilty in an accident.
In short, this ruling by the supreme court of the country is an effective and loud sound to create more responsibility among individuals on the road of India. It forcefully repeats that motor insurance only provides a valuable financial security but it is by no means a license to be careless or drive irresponsibly. The general principles applied by the ruling are to actively discourage careless driving practices, maintain the sanctity and ethical mechanism of the insurance sector and guarantee fair and foreseeable results of the parties that have been involved in any motor accident claim. It definitely requires a conscious change of raising awareness of the policy holders of the various ins and outs of obtaining their insurance policies and the serious dire consequences that may ensue when the holder drives in an unreasonable fashion.
Author
For any queries or to publish an article or post on our platform, please email us at contact@legalmaestros.com.
