[audioholic]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I have driven a VW Golf, for a couple of years, back in London, and it has been long been my modest ambition to own a VW, even a small one.

Well, now I do, and I can tell you that it is my last VAG car.

I feel very sad to see the enthusiasm in the various Polo threads. An enthusiasm that I used to share. But if I post in those threads now, it could only be to say that, ok, buy a VAG car, but, the day you get stuck in a flooded underpass, or otherwise get your car full of water (It hapens; it isn't that rare) is the day that VW will wash their hands of you, and all you get is the insurance settlement.

VAG: Disposable cars.

Was your car picked up? And did you try starting the car by any chance? Sorry if I have missed this info in your previous posts.

BTW, on a side note, the mention of december music season made me figure out who you are Nice seeing you in TBHP!

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by audioholic

Was your car picked up? And did you try starting the car by any chance? Sorry if I have missed this info in your previous posts.

No. There was a misunderstanding. We had asked them to hold off for a day or two while we explored an9other option. Then we forgot to tell them we had finished exploring. Probably tomorrow.

The could not attempt starting without jump leads. The battery will be dead.

BTW, on a side note, the mention of december music season made me figure out who you are Nice seeing you in TBHP!

Oh! Are you a concert goer?

[supremeBaleno]

A friend's 3-year old Scorpio got stuck in bonnet-high water during the floods. He even tried a couple starts. Got it back after repair - for 60K.

In contrast another friend had an XUV & EcoSport (both less than a year old) get submerged while parked and both M&M & Ford are writing off the cars.

I don't really get this. I doubt it is impossible to repair a submerged car - the Scorpio case proves it. So why write off good new cars ? Some racket ?

[Thad E Ginathom]

I don't get it either, especially when the engine was not running so cannot be damaged.

Well, I learnt the hard way.

[arvind71181]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

A friend's 3-year old Scorpio got stuck in bonnet-high water during the floods. He even tried a couple starts. Got it back after repair - for 60K.

In contrast another friend had an XUV & EcoSport (both less than a year old) get submerged while parked and both M&M & Ford are writing off the cars.

I don't really get this. I doubt it is impossible to repair a submerged car - the Scorpio case proves it. So why write off good new cars ? Some racket ?

Yes, I too dont understand. The only thing I can think off is they are simply not bothered to check if the vehicles can actually be repaired or not due to insufficient people or insufficient knowledge or a combination of both.

[Thad E Ginathom]

I think somebody else posted that they do not have the parts, because stuff like the ECU does not fail much, and they only import what they need to build. They are not even prepared to stock up in a situation like this, not even with a sea-container delivery date of months.

[Gansan]

I feel very sad to go through this thread. I feel the pain and frustration of everyone of those affected, especially the ones I have interacted with during Tbhp meets.

I went to MSM a couple of weeks earlier to try and fix a long needed service - not flood related - for a relative's car. He is a social worker involved in a lot of flood relief work and travels daily to many far flung areas, and needed the car badly. They flatly told me not to come anywhere near the workshop for a couple of months and I had to go really to the very top of the pyramid to fix an immediate date.

I saw lots and lots of flood affected cars all over the place - inside their premises, in the entire street immediately outside and also a couple of adjoining ones. They had classification stickers of A,B and C on them. They had even dispensed with home service, those vans were being used as tow vehicles to bring in the cars.

My question: If so many of submerged Maruti cars are repairable, why not the upmarket brands?

[Visaster]

In all this Maruti did a lot of publicity stunt saying they are mass moving parts, they are going to give 50% off and spare parts, they will not charge labor charges, they will run in 3 full time shifts, they will give 25k discount on new cars. Everything was an altered lie.

Getting spare parts especially Maruti has been difficult, considering that the highest number of cars damaged was Maruti, and the car with least protection to damage was Maruti too, obviously needing a lot of spare parts for repair.

All Maruti service centres are flooded with flood affected cars, including their yards. The dealers are taking people for a sweet ride. ABT maruti charges 5k just to register the car, for no work at all, plus towing charges of 3-6k, plus parking charges of Rs200/ day.

In all this nonsense the most affected is the insurance company, who are trying to not get cheated.

YES you heard me right. The people who are making profit of the situation is the company, service centre, dealer and crook car owners.

I personally know few people who has made fake claims to make profit out of the insurance. I have heard of the company giving a quote for 3 lakhs and finally getting the job done for just 80k, remaining money is split between the service guy and the owner of the car.

People go for cash loss, get the insurance money of around 60% of the IDV and later get the car repaired for just 30%, pockets the remaining 30%.

And here I am sitting with a genuine case and with no progress. obviously with all these con arts it is expected of the insurance company to play guarded.

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by Visaster

...considering that the highest number of cars damaged was Maruti, and the car with least protection to damage was Maruti too...

I can understand most damaged cars being Maruti since they sell the most cars and have ~50% market share. But did not understand the part in bold. What makes their cars have "least protection to damage" in the context of flooding ?

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by Visaster

People go for cash loss, get the insurance money of around 60% of the IDV and later get the car repaired for just 30%, pockets the remaining 30%.

I don't think this is wrong.

This is what my insurance offered: a settlement sum from them, plus the proceeds of selling the car. They themselves said I could keep the settlement sum and get the car repaired myself.

[srinath.s]

I have a feeling that I am being conned. Here's why:

My car (Alto K10 VXi 2014) was fully submerged in the floods and based on the insurance surveyor's assessment and repair estimate provided by an ASC (which exceeds the IDV), was declared a total loss 10 days ago. I was informed by the surveyor that salvage buyers will be notified and will get in touch with me to estimate the salvage cost.

In the meantime, I spoke to my insurer (National Insurance) who said that in order to settle cases quickly, a 60:40 scheme is in place where the insurance will pay 60% of the IDV and it is up to me, the customer to sell off the vehicle in my personal capacity and try to salvage as much of the 40% as possible.

One buyer, who is purportedly the surveyor's associate, contacts me and quotes approximately 20% of the IDV and after haggling a lot, a maximum of 25% for the car (which means I lose around 15-20% of the IDV). I neither accept nor deny, and decide to wait it out.

I then speak to my surveyor, who abuses me for not accepting the 25% offer and threatens to downgrade my case from "total loss" to "repairable" and rework the insurance report accordingly. I am flummoxed, as he in his own admission had sent my report to insurance, declaring total loss! How can he rework on the report if he has already submitted it?

My hunch is that he is sitting on my report and trying to convince me to sell my car to the buyer of his choice in a way that he is able to make a substantial cut out of the deal, following which he will submit the report and recommend insurance for settlement.

I, for one, am not prepared to settle for anything less than a total loss, as my car was under 7 feet of water for one whole day, and am not willing to risk my life as well as my family's by repairing the vehicle. Who knows what will fail in the future!

[ghodlur]

For the recent flood hit cars in Chennai and the subsequent Insurance claim process, a good article to read through.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...w/50328242.cms

[prithm]

Something tells me the best option is to take personal loan and get all the electronics/electricals changed. Engine will be nothing more than draining, cleaning and refilling.

Can be a suggestion for people who don't want to haggle with insurance guys !!

[sriram.raghavan]

Originally Posted by srinath.s

I have a feeling that I am being conned. Here's why:

My car (Alto K10 VXi 2014) was fully submerged in the floods and based on the insurance surveyor's assessment and repair estimate provided by an ASC (which exceeds the IDV), was declared a total loss 10 days ago. I was informed by the surveyor that salvage buyers will be notified and will get in touch with me to estimate the salvage cost.

In the meantime, I spoke to my insurer (National Insurance) who said that in order to settle cases quickly, a 60:40 scheme is in place where the insurance will pay 60% of the IDV and it is up to me, the customer to sell off the vehicle in my personal capacity and try to salvage as much of the 40% as possible.

One buyer, who is purportedly the surveyor's associate, contacts me and quotes approximately 20% of the IDV and after haggling a lot, a maximum of 25% for the car (which means I lose around 15-20% of the IDV). I neither accept nor deny, and decide to wait it out.

I then speak to my surveyor, who abuses me for not accepting the 25% offer and threatens to downgrade my case from "total loss" to "repairable" and rework the insurance report accordingly. I am flummoxed, as he in his own admission had sent my report to insurance, declaring total loss! How can he rework on the report if he has already submitted it?

My hunch is that he is sitting on my report and trying to convince me to sell my car to the buyer of his choice in a way that he is able to make a substantial cut out of the deal, following which he will submit the report and recommend insurance for settlement.

I, for one, am not prepared to settle for anything less than a total loss, as my car was under 7 feet of water for one whole day, and am not willing to risk my life as well as my family's by repairing the vehicle. Who knows what will fail in the future!

From what I understand, It is the insurance company's responsibility to repay for your total loss after deducting the depreciation and salvage the rest. Why should you be negotiating with the salvage buyers ? Salvage buyers will give the report to the insurance company like 1 lac or whatever. It is however, mentioned in the insurance claim report as to how much was salvaged.

[swami69]

Originally Posted by Visaster

People go for cash loss, get the insurance money of around 60% of the IDV and later get the car repaired for just 30%, pockets the remaining 30%.

Visaster, we cannot generalise this method stating that people go for this option for pocketing money. I am not talking about entirely fake cases where the water was only upto the tyre level and they claim dash board level. Here in this case, the insurance company needs to survey it clearly.

But for genuine cases, if someone opts for Cash Loss and wants to do the repair on his own, he is really taking a risk and you cannot always say that he will pocket money. There is a possibility that the owner can repair it within what he got from insurance OR the expenses may go up. Particularly in flood affected cars, NO SPECIALIST can exactly say this is what needs to be repaired, no way and something or the other will come up. Also, even today if he manages to get it repaired within limits, there is always a possibility that he may have to spend in the near future due to this flood damages. So, if he saves 30% it is his luck and this money can be kept for future expenditure.