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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more