NEW DELHI: Ahead of the new year revelry, here is a warning from the
Supreme Court for all parents -- Do not lend your two-wheelers or cars
to your children, who are eager to impress their peer group, without taking
an appropriate insurance cover.
For, if the youngster driving your vehicle meets with a fatal accident and,
even if you have a third-party insurance cover, the insurer is not liable to
compensate the death of your child, says the apex court.
People may find this logic strange because the insurance company is liable
to pay in case of an accident if the vehicle was driven by the owner. But,
the apex court said the third-party insurance policy does not cover
parent-child relationship.
This judgment given last week by a Bench comprising Justices S B Sinha
and Cyriac Joseph would make two-wheeler owners and their children to be
that much more careful as it follows another apex court ruling denying
insurance claim to injured pillion riders, terming them as gratuitous
passengers.
In the instant case, a Ranchi-based father had little idea of the
misfortune awaiting him when he allowed his motorcycle to be used by his
son. The speeding youngster met with an accident as a stray dog came in
front of his bike. While the pillion rider was thrown off the bike, the
rider died in the accident.
The Jharkhand High Court sympathised with the grieving father and asked
the insurance company to compensate the loss. This was challenged in the
Supreme Court by New India Assurance Company arguing that "keeping in view
the relationship between the deceased and the owner of the motor vehicle,
that is father and son, the latter was not a third party."
The question before the apex court was -- "whether the insurer is liable to
pay the amount of compensation in relation to the accident occurred by use
of the vehicle which was being driven by the son of the insured".
Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Sinha took note of a 2006
verdict in the case United India Insurance Co Ltd Vs Tilak Singh, in which
the apex court had held that "the insurance company would have no liability
towards the injuries suffered by the deceased who was a pillion rider, as
the insurance policy was a statutory policy which did not cover gratuitous
passenger".
Taking this verdict and few other judgments on the issue into account,
the Bench said: "We have no hesitation to hold that the insurance company
was not liable. The Jharkhand HC judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained.
It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed."
*dhananjay.mahapatra @timesgroup. com*