Third-party insurance exists to compensate victims of accidents — people who suffer because of someone else’s mistake
If you’re someone who assumes that your vehicle insurance will take care of your family no matter what happens, here’s a reality check from the Supreme Court (SC). In a recent judgment, the court made it clear that if you die in an accident that you caused through rash or negligent driving, your insurer isn’t obliged to pay a single rupee in compensation, according to a recent report by the Times of India. That’s exactly what happened in the case of N. S. Ravisha.
Back in June 2014, Ravisha, a contractor by profession, was driving with his family when his car overturned. He was speeding, police said, and lost control of the vehicle. Tragically, he died in the crash. His wife, son, and elderly parents later filed a claim with United India Insurance, the company that had issued his third-party motor insurance policy. They asked for Rs 80 lakh, stating that Ravisha earned approximately Rs 3 lakh per month and was the main breadwinner.
The claim didn’t hold up. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed it. Then the rejection also came from the Karnataka High Court. And now, the Supreme Court has agreed with both, saying plainly that because Ravisha caused the accident, his death wasn’t eligible for compensation under third-party insurance.
The logic behind the ruling is actually pretty straightforward. Third-party insurance exists to compensate victims of accidents — people who suffer because of someone else’s mistake. It’s not designed to cover the person who caused the accident in the first place. In Ravisha’s case, he was the driver, the one at fault, and not a third party under the law. His own legal heirs, therefore, don’t qualify for a payout.
This has broader implications, especially for people who assume that just having a valid policy means automatic protection for the family. It doesn’t. A basic third-party motor policy is a legal requirement, yes, but it won’t cover everything. If a driver is killed in an accident they themselves caused, their dependents could be left with nothing from the insurance company.
The court’s message is subtle but firm: don’t assume protection without understanding your policy. If you want that safety net for your family, regardless of who’s at fault, you need a comprehensive policy, not just the bare minimum.
It’s also a reminder about responsibility. The financial cost of an accident doesn’t end with vehicle damage or hospital bills. It can stretch into legal battles, denied claims, and emotional distress for families who expected some support and find none.
So what does this mean for the average car owner? Drive responsibly, of course. But more than that, read your policy. Know what it covers and what it doesn’t. Because when tragedy strikes, assumptions won’t hold up in court — and your insurer isn’t likely to bend the rules.