Page 58 - The Insurance Times August 2025

Legal Briefs

Insurance firm not liable to pay compen- dicts and those who seek to hog eyeballs by performing
stunts, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra.
sation for death of persons driving
Justices P S Narasimha and R Mahadevan refused to give
rashly: SC relief to the wife, son and parents of a man who died while
The Supreme Court has said insurance companies are not driving a car at high speed in a rash and negligent act which
liable to pay compensation to the families of individuals who ended with the vehicle toppling over.
die as a result of their own rash and reckless driving. Dismissing the claim petition of his kin, who demanded Rs
A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan re- 80 lakh as compensation from United India Insurance Com-
fused to grant Rs. 80 lakh compensation sought by the wife, pany, the bench said that family members cannot demand
son and parents of a man who died while driving a car at an insurance payout when death is caused due to a mistake
high speed. on part of the deceased without involvement of any extra-
The top court refused to interfere with the Karnataka High neous factors. The SC upheld the decision of Karnataka HC
Court's order dated November 23, 2024, which had dis- on Nov 23 last year rejecting their claim for compensation.
missed the plea filed by the deceased legal heirs claiming On June 18, 2014, one N S Ravisha was driving a Fiat Linea
compensation. from Mallasandra village to Arasikere town, with his father,
"We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judg- sister and her children as co-passengers. He drove rashly and
ment passed by the High Court. Hence, the Special Leave at a high speed and broke traffic rules before losing control
Petition is dismissed," the bench said in an order. of the vehicle near Mylanahalli gate, Arasikere. The car
toppled over and rolled on the road.
On June 18, 2014, N.S. Ravisha was driving from Mallasandra
village to Arasikere town when the accident took place. His Ravisha succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident. His
father, sister and her children were travelling in the car. wife, son and parents claimed compensation of Rs 80 lakh
on the grounds that he was a busy contractor earning Rs 3
The court had found that Ravisha drove the car in a negli- lakh per month. The police filed a chargesheet claiming that
gent manner without following traffic rules and lost control the accident occurred because of Ravisha's rash and negli-
over the vehicle which toppled on the road. Ravisha sus- gent driving. The Motor Accident Tribunal rejected the
tained fatal injuries in the accident.
family's claim.
The High Court had held that because "the accident oc- Hearing an appeal, Karnataka HC rejected the claim of
curred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased Ravisha's kin that the accident was caused due to a tyre
himself and he being self-tortfeasor, the legal heirs cannot burst and said, "when a claim is made by legal representa-
claim any compensation for his death, otherwise it would tives of the deceased, it has to be proved that the deceased
amount to a person who committed breach getting the was not himself responsible for the accident by his rash and
compensation for his own wrongs."
negligent driving and it would also be necessary to prove
Insurance co not bound to pay for that the deceased would be covered under the policy so as
to make the insurance company liable to make payment to
death of person driving rashly, rules SC the legal heirs." The court added, "In the instant case, ad-
Supreme Court said insurance companies are not bound to mittedly the accident occurred due to the rash and negli-
pay compensation to the kin of drivers who die due to their gent driving of the deceased himself and he being a self-
own mistake during daredevil stunts or on account of rash tortfeasor, the legal heirs cannot claim any compensation
and negligent driving, in an extreme message to speed ad- for his death".

52 August 2025 The Insurance Times