Insurance co not bound to pay for death of person driving rashly, rules SC
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Justices P S Narasimha and R Mahadevan refused to give relief to the wife, son and parents of a man who died while driving a car at high speed in a rash and negligent act which ended with the vehicle toppling over.
Complainant drove rashly, broke rules before car toppled
Dismissing the claim petition of his kin, who demanded Rs 80 lakh as compensation from United India Insurance Company, the bench said that family members cannot demand an insurance payout when death is caused due to a mistake on part of the deceased without involvement of any extraneous factors.
The SC upheld the decision of Karnataka HC on Nov 23 last year rejecting their claim for compensation.
On June 18, 2014, one N S Ravisha was driving a Fiat Linea from Mallasandra village to Arasikere town, with his father, sister and her children as co-passengers. He drove rashly and at a high speed and broke traffic rules before losing control of the vehicle near Mylanahalli gate, Arasikere. The car toppled over and rolled on the road.
Ravisha succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident. His wife, son and parents claimed compensation of Rs 80 lakh on the grounds that he was a busy contractor earning Rs 3 lakh per month. The police filed a chargesheet claiming that the accident occurred because of Ravisha's rash and negligent driving. The Motor Accident Tribunal rejected the family's claim.
Hearing an appeal, Karnataka HC rejected the claim of Ravisha's kin that the accident was caused due to a tyre burst and said, "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".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
24 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Ex-Beas SHO gets 10 years imprisonment in 1993 fake encounter case
After 32 years of legal battle, a CBI court in Mohali Wednesday sentenced former Beas (then SHO) Paramjit Singh (68) (retd SP) to 10 years of imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on him for abducting two Punjab Police constables who were later killed in a staged encounter in 1993. The court acquitted Inspector Dharam Singh (then SHO of Lopoke), ASI Kashmir Singh, and ASI Darbara Singh due to lack of concrete evidence, while S-I Ram Lubhiya (incharge, Butala police post) died during trial proceedings. The case dates back to April 18, 1993, when Constable Surmukh Singh (Muchhal village, Baba Bakala) and Constable Sukhwinder Singh (Khiala village, Amritsar), both in their early 20s, were picked up by the police and illegally detained. Later, the Majitha police claimed they had killed 'two unidentified militants' in an encounter and cremated their bodies as unclaimed. CBI public prosecutor Anmol Narang stated, 'Surmukh Singh was picked up by a team led by then SHO Paramjit Singh around 6 pm, while Sukhwinder Singh was picked by S-I Ram Lubhiya earlier the same day at 2 pm.' The next day, Sukhwinder's parents were denied access to meet him at Beas police station. Four days later, the Majitha police under SHO Dharam Singh falsely claimed an encounter and later filed an 'untraced report'. Acting on the Supreme Court's orders, the CBI began its probe on December 26, 1995, and identified the deceased as the two constables. A formal FIR was registered on February 28, 1997, and a chargesheet was filed in 1999 against five officers. Victims' counsel Jagjit Singh Bajwa and Sarabjit Singh Verka said, 'Despite charges being framed in 1999, the trial was delayed for over two decades due to baseless petitions. Only 27 witnesses were examined. Others died or turned hostile.' Charanjit Singh, son of late Surmukh Singh, while speaking to the media outside the court, said, 'These police officials not only killed my father but also ruined my life. I had been selected for recruitment in the police department, but because of the allegations/ this case made by them, I was not issued the appointment letter. I am seeking justice for that as well.'
Indian Express
26 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Surat: ATS, DCB arrests man with fake notes with face value of Rs 1.59 lakh
The Gujarat Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) and the Detection of Crime Branch (DCB) of Surat city police, in a joint operation on Tuesday, raided a Diamond City-bound train and seized Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICN) in denominations of Rs 500 and with face value of Rs 1.59 lakh. They also nabbed one Satyanarayan Devilal Teli, who was ferrying the notes from West Bengal,. He had allegedly purchased the notes for Rs 59,000. He had received a total of 319 fake Rs 500 notes by paying Rs 185 per note. The ATS had received a tip-off about Teli, a resident of Mankna village in Surat. Teli was travelling to Surat on Porbandar-Santragachi Kavi Guru Superfast Express train, which was scheduled to reach Udhna railway station on Tuesday. A team of the ATS was dispatched. The ATS officials raided the train along with DCB officers. Teli was booked under BNS sections 179 (use of forged currency), 180 (possession of forged currency), 61(2) (criminal conspiracy). Further investigation into the source of the fake notes is underway.
The Hindu
26 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Secretly recorded conversations may be evidence, but erode spousal trust
In a landmark judgment in a divorce case (Vibhor Garg vs Neha), the Supreme Court has accepted the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations between a married couple as reliable evidence. Vibhor Garg had filed a divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in a family court at Bathinda in Punjab on the grounds of mental cruelty by his wife, Neha. The petitioner adduced conversations between him and his wife recorded by him over a period of time without her consent and knowledge to buttress his allegations of mental cruelty. The evidence was admitted by the family court. However, on appeal against its decision, the Punjab & Haryana High Court took an opposing view, holding the secretly recorded calls violative of the fundamental right to privacy as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice Lisa Gill held that the conversations were in clear breach of the privacy rights, and set aside the decision of the family court. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court, which on July 14 ruled in favour of the husband by accepting the recorded conversations, though they were made without the consent and knowledge of the spouse. Complete lack of trust The Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, used the recorded conversations to conclude that the marriage in question had reached a point of a broken relationship, where one spouse was actively snooping on the other, denoting a complete lack of trust between them, the very bedrock of a marriage. In essence, the Supreme Court admitted the recorded conversations to decide on the broken marriage rather than as an absolute question of privacy laws. The court also relied on the exception provided in Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which permits the disclosure of recorded marital communications in suits between married persons or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other. The Bench observed: 'We do not think there is any breach of privacy in this case. Section 122 of the Evidence Act does not recognise any such right. On the other hand, it carves out an exception to the right to privacy between spouses and therefore cannot be applied horizontally at all.' The Family Courts Act, 1984 grants a family court discretion to admit evidence, including reports, statements, documents, information, or other matters, that, in its opinion, will assist in effectively handling a dispute, even if that evidence might not meet the admissibility benchmark under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This provision allows the family courts to consider a broader range of evidence, including recorded conversations, in deciding matrimonial disputes. The court recognised that instances of mental suffering were very private and recorded conversations assisted the family court in deciding the matter appropriately. It reaffirmed its commitment to a fair trial, an inalienable right provided by Article 21 of the Constitution. Important form of evidence Call recordings have become an important form of evidence in legal proceedings. The Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 are the primary laws related to electronic records and the admissibility of these records. The admissibility of call recordings in Indian courts has been a matter of debate and controversy for several years. The K.S. Puttaswamy judgment (2017) established privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court, in this case, has interpreted the right to privacy in the specific context of matrimonial discord, the exception provided in the Evidence Act, and the admissibility of relevant evidence in a family court proceeding to decide a case. The judgment reaffirms the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations, based on the precedent set in R.M. Malkani vs State of Maharashtra. The admissibility of recorded electronic evidence was also examined in S. Pratap Singh vs State of Punjab, in which the Supreme Court accepted an unauthorisedly obtained tape-recorded conversation between two parties. The court evaluated the evidentiary value of the tape-recorded conversation and accepted it as evidence only because it was essential to resolving the case. Some believe the judgment will promote spousal surveillance and abuse of privacy laws to be used against an unsuspecting partner in future. Research established that women are generally at the receiving end in a family or a live-in relationship. The male counterpart enjoys greater coercive control. Admission of recorded conversations between spouses will create a greater atmosphere of suspicion, a trust deficit, and an abuse of privacy laws. The admissibility of call recordings in Indian courts depends on several factors, including the authenticity, accuracy, and reliability of the recordings, the relevance and probative value of the recordings to the issue at hand, and the circumstances under which the recordings were made. As technology continues to evolve, the admissibility of electronic evidence, including call recordings, will likely remain a subject of judicial scrutiny and interpretation. The admissibility of electronic evidence, such as recorded telephone or mobile conversations and video clips, often raises concerns regarding the right to privacy. While electronic evidence is accepted in a court of law, it is not generally legal for individuals to record conversations without authorisation due to the violation of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, in Vibhor Garg vs Neha, the Supreme Court has emphasised that the use of recorded conversations as evidence is admissible only in cases involving matrimonial or family discord. Only time will tell if the courts in India will be liberal in accepting such evidence in other cases also. (The writer is a former Director-General of Police, Himachal Pradesh; view are personal)
