Skip to main content

Insurance: Intentional self-injury explained

In Mala Sahni Seth vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the insured died while trying to ride a high end bike. It was found on enquiring that the company owning the bike had specifically asked riders to get oriented with the bike before riding which the insured had not done. The claim of the legal heirs of the insured was however repudiated by the insurer as per Exception No. 5(a) of the policy which says that the company shall not be liable under this policy for Payment of compensation in respect of Death, Injury or Disablement of the Insured from Intentional self-injury.

The matter reached the NCDRC which observed that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Galada Power and Telecommunication Limited Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. (2016) 14 SCC 161,  the insurer cannot be allowed to contest the consumer complaint beyond the ground on which the claim has been repudiated. A perusal of the repudiation letter would show that the claim was repudiated solely on the ground that M/s Eagle Rider who had given the motor cycle to its pillion rider Mr. Neeraj Sethi on hire had advised  the person driving the motor-cycle to undergo an orientation and the deceased had not undergone such orientation with the vehicle before he drove the vehicle and, therefore, this was a case of intentional self-injury.  The use of the term 'intentional self-injury' in the insurance policy would mean that the person who suffered the injury must have wanted such an injury to be caused to him.  Ordinarily, this would happen in a case where a person either wants to committee suicide or he wants to cause injury to himself. The intention of a person is a state of mind which cannot be proved by way of direct evidence but has to be inferred from the attending facts and circumstances. There is no evidence to prove that Late Sh. Sunil Seth wanted to commit suicide or he wanted to cause injury to himself.  Therefore, there was no basis for the insurer to even claim that this is a case of intentional self-injury. In my opinion an intentional self-injury cannot be inferred even if driving this particular motor-cycle required some special orientation or even a special training which late Mr. Sunil Seth did not possess.  M/s Eagle Rider owned the vehicle and, therefore, must be quite keen to insure that the vehicle is not damaged while being driven by the hirer. That would the purpose of requiring the hirer to take an orientation of the vehicle so that he is able to familiarize himself with the machine being taken on hire and did not cause an accident resulting in damage to the vehicle. A person driving a high-end motor cycle without taking the orientation which the owner of the vehicle wants to be taken by the driver of the vehicle may be said to be negligent if he drives the vehicle without such an orientation, but it can never be said that his intention behind driving such a motor cycle without orientation, desired by its owner, was to cause injury to himself.  A negligent act such as driving a motor cycle without taking the orientation desired by its owner can never be equated with an intentional self-injury if driving the vehicle result in an accident.  The intention being a state of mind required resolve on the part of the insured to either kill himself or to cause injury to himself. If a person drives a vehicle without having a driving licence it would be difficult to say that his intention is to cause self-injury. The intention of such a person would be to enjoy the driving though he may not be possessing the skill required for the purpose. If a person driving a vehicle meets with an accident it would be difficult to say merely from his driving without a licence that his intention was to cause injury to himself. The position of a person who otherwise possesses a valid driving licence but does not take the orientation advised by the owner giving the vehicle on hire would be much better than the position of a person driving a vehicle without requisite licence. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the present case was not covered under exception No. 5(a) of the policy.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more