[xenon0025]

Originally Posted by Flyingdutchman

One important update I have received from Victim's colleagues. They both used to work in Johnson's Control. HR division is in talks with Insurance Provider. But it seems that They both have been denied Term Insurance by the Insurance Provider stating Alcohol in their blood.They were having party with office colleagues at a nightclub (Ballr) 100 m from accident spot. Police (As expected)was very diligent into taking their blood samples for Alcohol whereas Accused's blood samples were taken at 11am.

So since both victims had Alcohol (traces of) and were not wearing helmets, Their Term Insurance has been denied as per the info I got. I read one judgement of Madras HC that Term insurance cannot be denied just because they weren't wearing helmet, but need inputs from knowledgeable persons about DUI and Term insurance. What are the options here for victim's family? Kindly provide any advice how to go about this so that info can be relayed to HRBP.

Regards,

I suggest you post/reference this query to a seperate insurance thread we have on this forum. Higher chances of eliciting a response there. I am sorry but I cannot help with the nitty gritty of insurance.

[Jupizire]

Originally Posted by antz.bin

I don't know about the 2-wheeler riders but there is a 99% chance that both rider and pillion were not wearing helmets. So they (most probably) wilfully broke the helmet law. Doing this is equivalent to not wearing the seatbelt when driving. This (probable) willful activity by the 2 wheeler riders endangered their lives which they eventually lost in the accident. They may or may not have survived even with a helmet on but the fact that they probably didn't, contributed to their death.

There is a big difference. If the bike rider, without wearing a helmet, crashed into a divider or skidded on his own or due to "his own riding" suffered a fatality, then wearing/not wearing the helmet would come into question.

But in this case, the biker was hit at 200kmph walloping speed that resulted in fatality. The accident was caused by someone else who broke many laws willfully. So whether the biker was wearing a helmet or not would/should not be the deciding factor here.

[hrk997]

This is merely one among thousands of accidents in India. This incident isn't any worse than the thousands of accidents caused by bus and truck drivers under the influence across India. It's drawn a lot of attention because its a rich kid in a porsche. Even if it were a poor kid in a celerio, he would probably still get away with it, considering there are grown men who cause far more serious accidents just walking away from the debacle.

There is a systemic malaise in that the majority of our countrymen simply don't know to drive because they just weren't taught how to. The issue starts at the RTOs that issue licenses for a bribe and the fact that we don't even have proper lane rules. We continue to lead the world in road accidents, and before some patriot says it's because of population, no, it's simply because Indians weren't taught to drive and therefore they do not know to.

The commotion will die down and everyone involved are going to get away with it once the next hot take comes in and people completely forget about this. It's unfortunate, but that's just how this country is going to work for the foreseeable future. To reiterate, except for the fact that some rich folks and a porsche are involved here, there is absolutely nothing unique about this incident. Save your righteous fury for the deeper systemic Issues plaguing us and there is a minuscule chance something may come of it.

[Chhanda Das]

Here is an excellent analysis :

https://youtube.com/watch?v=gSmi8fgKRZQ

But I don't have very high hopes. The rich criminals almost always get away in this country. If you don't believe me then here is a reminder :
https://www.forbes.com/sites/naaznee...e-night-time/?

[ghtg1]

I feel entire country is responsible for this loss. We all didn't step up and let it pass each time and continue to do so. If someone wants to know what will happen for next 7-10 years to this accussed, search Delhi civil lines hit and run case. The driver was 4 days short of turning 18, drove at similiar speeds very recklessly, had previous traffic violations and everything was recorded in CCTV. The sister of decease is still making circles of court to get justice and accused has applied to court for foreign studies which is likely to be granted.

The case even reached steps of Supreme court and here is what they concluded:
https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi...ah5aHJAfM.html

[Emvi]

Originally Posted by hrk997

This is merely one among thousands of accidents in India. This incident isn't any worse than the thousands of accidents caused by bus and truck drivers under the influence across India.

Your post is very well put.

------------------------------------------

It is terrible that two young souls lost their lives. The offender in this case deserves the harshest possible punishment, no doubt. However, even if this happens, how many of us believe that this will set an example for others, not me for sure. Accidents like these happen anywhere, not just in India, but even in the most developed countries or those with the strictest rules in place, unfortunately. Don't take my words, just google the topic and you'll find out.

Accidents are accidents after all, unless someone deliberately causes a collision, no matter who's behind the wheel – a senior citizen, a cop, a politician, a businessman, a soldier, an underaged kid, or a drunk driver. It doesn't even matter if it's a high-end car, a load carrier, or a 2/3 wheeler. The thing is, an accident turns into a crime when rules are broken – drunken driving, underage driving, over-speeding, etc. Even a jaywalker can be the reason for a massive accident, even though they may escape unhurt while motorists/other pedestrians might lose lives or be left seriously injured.

In the case we are discussing, the accident is nothing but a crime. Given the judicial system we have in place, I can only pray justice prevails.

[MT_Hyderabad]

Originally Posted by Flyingdutchman

One important update I have received from Victim's colleagues. They both used to work in Johnson's Control. HR division is in talks with Insurance Provider. But it seems that They both have been denied Term Insurance by the Insurance Provider stating Alcohol in their blood.They were having party with office colleagues at a nightclub (Ballr) 100 m

As per my understanding, if the term insurance is 1 year old (and has suicide covered), even suicide cannot prevent the beneficiary from getting the claim. This suicide can be with excess alcohol and intentionally ramming the bike to a pillar!

Originally Posted by Raskolnikov.R

If you believe the young couple died because they were not wearing a helmet and (probably) caused their own death, it is a line I pray and hope no one from their respective families gets to read.

Your post may be the saddest one I've read on Team-Bhp in the 15+ years I've been following it.

If a high speed car (may be doing 100 km/hr) hits a pedestrian crossing the road without looking at the traffic, who is responsible?

I read antz.bin's comment, and do not agree with it, however, he is not absolutely incorrect. The car driver was responsible for the crash, but someone with a head gear may have survived. For example, if a Porsche ram's into a Maruti, Porsche was responsible, but a good built quality car would have prevented the damages to the people in the Maruti. How many times have we discussed this? A car is reduced to a crushed tin can after hitting a stationary truck. We say, that a car with good built quality would have survived this crash, although the stationary truck was the culprit.

I respect other people opinions as they may have a different frame of mind while writing such a post.

In the end we are confident about how we drive. We only buy safe cars to safeguard ourselves from the fools driving at high speed, irresponsibily.

[anjan_c2007]

Today, the bail of the Pune teenager who rammed his Porsche into a motorcycle, killing two IT professionals in their 20s, has been cancelled by the Juvenile Justice Board. Its a joke now. Moreover, it is not known how the JJB took this decision to cancel it, once they had granted bail. Which provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 allow the very same court to set aside its own decision? News is that the Dy Chief Minister who is also the State Home Minister was in Pune on Tuesday amidst the national condemnation and outrage. He had specifically expressed his displeasure at the JJB's verdict during his visit. And this could have been a triggering factor for the JJB to set aside its own decision of granting bail to the accused driver.

The disturbing fact is why did the JJB not act sternly at the first instance by issuing a verdict that would uphold and vindicate this grave criminal act by the delinquent teenager? It's only after the nation wide outrage and terse words from the Dy CM and Home Minister that the JJB wakes up. Very sorry state of affairs!

The bail cancellation news link :-

"Bail Of Pune Teen Who Killed 2 Techies With Porsche Cancelled Amid Outrage"

http://dhunt.in/UFoMm?s=a&uu=0x4a09defdfbda8a93&ss=pd

[thanixravindran]

Originally Posted by Flyingdutchman

One important update I have received from Victim's colleagues. They both used to work in Johnson's Control. HR division is in talks with Insurance Provider. But it seems that They both have been denied Term Insurance by the Insurance Provider stating Alcohol in their blood.

Generally companies give Group Term Insurance and Group Personal Accident Insurance apart from health insurance as perks for employees.

It will be based on the terms of the company and insurer. Many companies exclude suicide in Group Term Insurance and drunken driving in Group Personal Accident Insurance. So in this case please check whether claim is denied under personal accident cover or term insurance. I expect term insurance to be honored but not personal accident cover.

[PZK]

There is so much outrage about this case because the system is not working as intended(or it is working as intended for selected few).

1. The murderer got special treatment in the police station.
2. The police did not register the FIR in relevant section and used a more lenient one.
3. The magistrate granted bail with some very silly punishment.

Only after an uproar on social media and national TV, the right steps are being pursued.

In order to bring a little bit more accountability, if we discuss these individuals on national TV and Social media, it might make a better impact.(Name and Shame).

1. Produce the name and clear picture of the person who murdered these two techies.
2. Identify the station incharge who registered the FIR, show his name and picture on national TV so that all their family and friends know what kind of a person they are.
3. Same treatment for the magistrate who granted the bail.

National TV might be handcuffed by privacy laws in such cases, but this is where social media can really take a lead. The current system of shielding the individuals does not work at all and there is a definite need to change it. Instead of saying the system did not work, say this individual did not do their job.

Hiding their names only benefits their case and they will do it again.


Pramod

[da3mn]

I hope that media should have given similar coverage to the below accident in 2013.
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/west...238-2013-12-18

[Turbanator]

Originally Posted by Flyingdutchman

But it seems that They both have been denied Term Insurance by the Insurance Provider stating Alcohol in their blood.

So since both victims had Alcohol (traces of) and were not wearing helmets, Their Term Insurance has been denied as per the info I got.

Another member had touched upon this earlier.

https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/road-...ml#post5773933 (Underage drunk driver rams unregistered Porsche Taycan into 2-wheeler at high speed | 2 dead)


Usually, in such accidents, a deceased person would have claimed a third party from Car/ vehicle Insurance. Now, not just their insurance but third-party insurance can also be denied. I don't think Helmets will be a big issue, but alcohol will be.

Also, after the noise is settled, that person will get bail, and the onus on the accident can be shifted to the bike rider, citing alcohol. Even public sympathy may change if it is found that bike riders are equally at fault. I haven't noted if there is a video of the accident; in the absence of the same, it will be the word of that car driver vs. people who saw the accident. Unfortunately, the bike riders are not here to answer.

[NPV]

Originally Posted by Flyingdutchman

Police (As expected)was very diligent into taking their blood samples for Alcohol whereas Accused's blood samples were taken at 11am.

If there’s anyone who can game the system, it is the police. They will know every single law and loophole and it is likely that they planned this (to help the accused) right at the beginning when the accident took place.
Isn’t it ironic that the drunken driver may eventually get away and his blood sample already shows as negative for alcohol but the victims are shown as drunk and their families are denied the insurance payout

[IC_Morningstar]

From the parents to the chauffeur and also that not so young kid is responsible for the accident/murder.
It remind me of my time when I crossed 18 and got to ride an old Hero Passion Plus. It was underpowered but still my father went an extra mile to save me from getting into trouble by locking my monthly petrol allowances. The fuel tank lid was fitted with a different key and I had to extract a minimum milage of 55kmph in city to survive the whole month. It taught me to restraint my adrenaline at an young age and also a lesson to extract maximum milage in vehicle which does wonder in today's petrol price.

[agastya]

Originally Posted by Ays7

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall render such guardian or owner liable to any punishment provided in this Act, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.

I wonder if providing a driver to drive the car can be considered enough due diligence to prevent the kid from driving. As you said, most likely a good lawyer will easily get the father off.