Jago Grahak jago

State Consumer Helpline Knowledge Resource
Management Portal (SCHKRMP)

Empowering Consumers

Govt. of India
IIPA logo

Daily News Clipping

 
Health Insurance Claim: This is why your insurer may not pay the entire claim amount
Homebuyers can now seek full refund with 10 interest if flats get delayed beyond 1 year
Govt mulls making UPI-based QR codes mandatory for shops
Consumer panel to rescue of car buyer
Coke to connect with new-age consumers across media
Consumer court orders insurer to pay for inpatient diagnosis
Director of real estate firm held for non-compliance with consumer forum order
Possession delay, Consumer forum slaps Rs 1-lakh fine on Unitech
EMI scheme: HDFC Bank ordered to pay Rs 35,000 compensation to customer
Bank transfers Rs 48,000 to wrong account, held guilty for ‘careless transaction
Ahmedabad man sues lawyer after court dismisses his case
Consent not must for lifesaving surgery, says consumer body
Compensation of Rs 19 lakh awarded in medical negligence case
Bengaluru apartment owners win battle against developer
Complaints Against Illegal Deductions By Mobile Operators Can Be Filed In Consumer Forums: HP SCDRC
Air Canada to pay Rs 15k to Panchkula resident for damaging luggage
Pay Rs13.39L claim to truck owner, insurance co told
Consumer forum direts MakeMyTrip to pay Rs. Lakh to group of travellers
More power to you over builders Now, get refund for delayed possession of house
Irdai proposes to increase third-party insurance premium for cars, two-wheelers
Insurance firms told to pay Rs 27k for failing to provide cashless treatment
OnePlus directed to pay customer Rs.47,000
Charging GST on discounted items an ‘unfair trade practice’
Third party motor insurance rates may be hiked up to 20
More power to you over builders Now, get refund for delayed possession of house
Cookie crumbles for courier firm for ‘neglect’ in delivery.
Amul hikes milk prices by Rs 2 a litre from today
Insurance firm told to pay over Rs.2 lakh for non-settlement of claim
Firm fails to provide charter service to Amarnath shrine, to pay Rs. 25,000
Sterling Resorts told to refund customer for deficiency in service
Firm fails to provide charter service to Amarnath shrine, to pay ?25,000
GSTN launches prototype for new return filing system
SBI to organise nationwide customer meet to address grievances
CCI approves GSK, Pfizer joint venture in consumer healthcare
Rs.10.46 lakh compensation in 2017 accident case
No GST at duty-free shops: HC
 

Should vehicle drivers or owners pay for third-party compensation in accidents
ECONOMIC TIMES, DECEMBER 03, 2018


Insurers want vehicle owners or drivers to pay stiffer fines or buy additional third-party covers. Not all agree.

Can making them pay a part of the compensation be a solution? ET Wealth speaks to experts.

Jehangir Gai, Consumer Activist, says NO "The law makes it mandatory to have third party insurance coverage for all vehicles. This does not burden the insurer as the compensation is funded by the premium collected."

Drivers, even in metros, earn about Rs 15,000 a month. The working condition of truck drivers, who mostly belong to the lower strata of society and hail from remote villages, is worse. Consequently, they do not have much savings. So, it would be impractical to expect a professional driver to bear a part of the compensation payable to an accident victim. Judicial delays also make it difficult to trace a driver and execute the order several years down the line.

Similar difficulties could arise in affixing liability on the owner of a vehicle. Law is uniformly applicable—it cannot discriminate between affluent and poor vehicle owners. There are several people without much money who buy a vehicle on hire purchase to ply it for gainful employment.

Such persons will not be able to afford payment of any compensation. Moreover, an owner may sell off his vehicle, change residence, migrate, or even be dead by the time the case gets decided. This would make it difficult for the decree holder to execute the award for compensation. Keeping all these factors in mind, the law makes it mandatory to have third party insurance coverage for all vehicles. This methodology does not even put a burden on the insurer, as the compensation payable is funded through the premium which is collected. Another advantage is that insurance companies have a presence throughout the country. So recovery of compensation from the insurer is much simpler.

Hence, payment of the entire compensation by the insurer is in the best interests of of all concerned.

Shailaja Lall Partner, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas says NO

"For victims, there is no recourse to compensation if the owner or the driver can’t pay it."

The idea of the insured driver/owner sharing a portion of the third-party compensation is flawed. For the insured driver or owner, this defeats the purpose of obtaining third party cover, as the insured will still have to pay out of his pocket and will remain exposed to such liability.

For the victim, there is no recourse to compensation if the owner or the driver has no means to pay it, and in several cases, this will lead to protracted litigation. As per existing laws, interim compensation for death or permanent disablement of a victim works on a no-fault principle. The efficacy of this principle will be impacted if compensation is to be contributed by the owner or driver. The purpose of the no-fault principle is to bring faster relief to victims.

If the insured drivers and owners are made to share a portion of the compensation, then it will open up a lengthy process of investigation to determine fault and the relevance of third party insurance cover can be questioned. The core issue to be addressed in third party motor insurance segment is enforcement of mandatory third party insurance cover rule.

Rakesh Jain Executive Director and CEO, Reliance General Insurance says Yes but... "Owners/drivers can contribute by buying an optional add-on cover."

Getting the insured to directly share the compensation payout is not practical. Claims are filed by the accident victims after a lag. The hearings at the tribunal could also go on for a few years. So, the claimant could receive the compensation only after several years. At that stage, it is not always easy to trace the owner or driver. Thus, it is the poor victim who will have to suffer.

In some parts of the world, there is a minimum mandatory insurance specified under third-party covers. For example, in the US, it is $1,00,000 in most states. It is optional for the driver to buy the additional cover. If a driver chooses to buy protection till $5,00,000, another $4,00,000-cover will be required to be bought.

At the moment, in India, it is an open-ended model for insurers and the whole liability is passed to the insurers. The claims can come in after many years and there is no cap on the likely compensation. My view is that the owners/drivers should participate in compensation sharing by buying an optional add-on cover that insures them against claims exceeding the minimum amount—say Rs 15 lakh—prescribed by law.

Kamesh Goyal Chairman, Digit General Insurance Co says Yes but... "The driver of a vehicle should be fined Rs 10,000 for injury cases and Rs 25,000 for deaths and the vehicle owner should be fined double this. This, in a way would be their contribution."

India has the highest number of road accidents in the world compared to the number of vehicles. The reasons are many. Overloading of vehicles, poorly maintained vehicles, drivers who are untrained or driving on bogus licences, as well as over worked drivers, etc.

Another contributing factor is the way our judicial system is structured. Cases for compensation go on forever and the courts over a period of time have adopted a philosophy that insurance companies should pay more and more compensation while letting go the vehicle owner and driver.This, coupled with the fact that motor third party premium in India has no concept of no claim bonus, has meant vehicle owners and drivers have no incentive or disincentive to reduce road accidents.

Since there is no time limit to file a MACT claim, the concept of NCB will not work as intimations of accident come after 1-2 years also. The only way this will work is if the driver of the vehicle is fined a minimum of Rs 10,000 for injury cases and Rs 25,000 for deaths and the vehicle owner is fined double this amount. This, in a way would be their contribution. The cases can take years, so getting them to pay will be difficult. So, the amount should be deposited in the court as soon as a charge sheet is filed.

If the driver is not traceable, then the owner becomes liable for the driver’s fine as well. Unless people whose vehicles are involved in road accidents are penalised, society will continue to pay a heavy social and economic price for the road accidents.

Translate this page

Help No. States Consumer Helplines

  • ANDAMAN & NICOBAR
    03192-246323
  • ANDHRA PRADESH
    1800-425-0082, 1800-425-2977
  • ARUNACHAL PRADESH
    1800-345-3601
  • ASSAM:
    1800-345-3611
  • BIHAR
    1800-345-6188
  • CHHATTISGARH
    1800-233-3663
  • DELHI
    011-23379266
  • GUJARAT
    1800-233-0222,
    079-27489945 / 46
  • HARYANA
    1800-180-2087
  • HIMACHAL PRADESH
    1800-180-8026
  • JHARKHAND
    1800-3456-598
  • KARNATAKA
    1800-425-9339,
    1967
  • KERALA
    1800-425-1550
  • MADHYA PRADESH
    1800-233-0046
  • MAHARASHTRA
    1800-22-2262
  • MANIPUR
    1800-345-3821,
    0385-2443924
  • MIZORAM
    1800-345-3891
  • NAGALAND
    1800-345-3701
  • ODISHA
    1800-345-6724,
    1800-345-6760,
    0674-2351990,
    0674-2350209
  • PUDUCHERRY
    1800-425-1082,
    1800-425-1083,
    1800-425-1084,
    1800-425-1085
  • RAJASTHAN
    1800-180-6030
  • SIKKIM
    1800-345-3209
  • TAMIL NADU
    044-28592828
  • TELANGANA
    1800-425-00333
  • TRIPURA
    1800-345-3665
  • UTTAR PRADESH
    1800-1800-300
  • UTTARAKHAND
    1800-180-4188
  • FSSAI
    1800-11-2100
  • WEST BENGAL
    1800-345-2808