Another reason to drive safe on Indian roads: You may lose insurance claim for rash driving

The Supreme Court has said that insurance companies are not bound to cover the costs of a road accident caused by the recklessness of the driver, in a stark reminder to rash drivers.

According to a report by Times of India, a bench consisting of Justices P S Narasimha and R Mahadevan refused to give relief to a wife, son and parents of a man who died in a car accident due to its high speed, which led the vehicle to topple over.

The top court dismissed a compensation claim filed by the family of a deceased man, who had sought Rs 80 lakh from United India Insurance Company. The bench ruled that family members are not entitled to an insurance payout when the death results from the deceased’s own mistake, with no external factors involved. The Court upheld the Karnataka High Court’s decision from November 23 last year, which had also rejected the claim.

More from India

2X surge pricing: Why Ola, Uber rides will cost more during peak hours 24 rapes in 9 days: How rising violence against women has become an epidemic in Bangladesh

The case finds its origins in an accident that happened in 2014 when N S Ravisha was driving from Bengaluru’s Mallasandra to Arasikere city along with his sister, her children and father. The vehicle met with an accident as the man drove rashly and at high speeds, breaking traffic rules.

Ravisha died from injuries sustained in the accident. His wife, son, and parents filed a claim seeking Rs 80 lakh in compensation, arguing that he was a successful contractor earning ₹3 lakh per month.

However, the police chargesheet stated that the accident was caused by Ravisha’s rash and negligent driving. Based on this, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the family’s compensation request.

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

'New dawn': PM Modi meets Manipur violence victims in first visit since 2023 unrest

CP Radhakrishnan takes oath as Vice President of India

During a hearing at the Karnataka High Court, Ravisha’s kin’s claim that the accident was caused by a burst tyre was rejected, with the court saying, “when a claim is made by legal representatives of the deceased, it has to be proved that the deceased was not himself responsible for the accident by his rash and negligent driving and it would also be necessary to prove that the deceased would be covered under the policy so as to make the insurance company liable to make payment to the legal heirs.”

The court added, “In the instant case, admittedly the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself and he being a self-tortfeasor, the legal heirs cannot claim any compensation for his death”.