[som9729]

Originally Posted by nitkel

While this is a ridiculous decision, it can be binding only in Tamil Nadu isn't it? No need for folks from other states to start worrying about this!

Yes, that's true. HC jurisdiction is limited to the state it is in.
The disturbing part of this is that it shouldn't be cited elsewhere as an excuse for forcing 5 yr insurance on car owners.

[low_rider]

The worst part is that the consumer getting locked with an Insurance Company for 5 years, and they can't change the insurance provider even if they get poor services. Insurance companies would have already started manicuring their middle fingers.

[PaddleShifter]

Originally Posted by sierrabravo98

the judgement just states that a vehicle has to be covered under a bumper to bumper insurance policy every year for the first 5 years of its life. No one is forcing you to purchase a policy with a term period of 5 years at the time of purchasing the vehicle. Just get your policy renewed every year.

Just see an example below.

Originally Posted by bullitt1

For Compass sport, dealers quote 1 lac insurance, if this insanity comes true, then additional 4 lacs at the time of purchase if to be taken at once.

What if someone does not want to pay 5-6 lacs to an insurance company over a period of 5-7 years but he/she is willing to take risk of expensive repair out of pocket, do I have a choice?
(Assuming paying on an average 80-90k for insurance every year for 5-6 years).

The only benefit of bumper to bumper insurance is for an owner in case of an accident. Its the insurance and finance companies that just hit the jackpot.

Second party or third party or even the community have no benefit from bumper to bumper insurance as per my understanding.

Why force this upon the masses?

Maybe I am missing something.

[sagaranjos]

The only logical explanation I can come up is that the judge thought that "bumper-to-bumper" means everything in between the bumpers including the driver and passengers. The case in question does talk about the human occupants not being covered.

Somebody tell him/her what the term actually means.

[karthik1996]

Originally Posted by hareshjethwani

I just got my Creta registered. Have taken my own insurance. You need to get the car insured before it is taken for registration. So get the insurance done ASAP and get it registered. But I am not sure if the RTO will object when it is sent for registration that it has the 3 year insurance as it will be the 1st already. Why don't you do the PDI and get the insurance on Monday. You can get it registered on Tuesday to avoid any hassle.
EDIT - Monday is Janmastami,so not sure if it will be a working day.

My mom/dad doesn't prefer registering the vehicle on Tuesday, not an auspicious day according to them I was planning to settle the payment only by Wednesday and SA wants 2 days after settlement to register the vehicle. So I was planning for Thursday/Friday.

With this new ruling from HC I am really not sure if I should go ahead and take the insurance from Royal Sundaram. With no clarifications coming from either the Ministry of Road Transports or IRDA, the SA too is unsure. SA says he has provided only 1 OD + 3TP insurance for people taking the insurance through the showroom.

[pkk077]

Originally Posted by som9729

Yes, that's true. HC jurisdiction is limited to the state it is in.

Not true. HCs can issue directions to entities outside their jurisdiction too. Not sure if the current case falls under that category though.

[TheGearBox]

Its as if they want to kill off the auto industry in this country!
28% GST on cars, sky-high fuel prices and now this.

And what about NCB? Let's say my NCB is currently at 50%. If I buy a new car, will my NCB be factored in while my premium for 5 years coverage is calculated? If yes, and I make a claim in the second year of ownership, will I have to pay the additional premium amount for the remaining three years? And if no, and I make no claim in five years, will I get some sort of refund or cashback in lieu of the NCB?

Off-topic, all this discussion on "bumper-to-bumper" reminded me of a very entertaining story by Rob Pitts aka Rabbit.

https://youtu.be/-8itSAOoK3w

[sierrabravo98]

Originally Posted by PaddleShifter

Just see an example below.




What if someone does not want to pay 5-6 lacs to an insurance company over a period of 5-7 years but he/she is willing to take risk of expensive repair out of pocket, do I have a choice?
(Assuming paying on an average 80-90k for insurance every year for 5-6 years).

The only benefit of bumper to bumper insurance is for an owner in case of an accident. Its the insurance and finance companies that just hit the jackpot.

Second party or third party or even the community have no benefit from bumper to bumper insurance as per my understanding.

Why force this upon the masses?

Maybe I am missing something.

Don't know what you are trying to get at but you completely missed the point of my post. My post was intended towards members who believed that they would have to pony up the entire premium for 5 years at the time of purchasing the vehicle. I simply said that such an assumption would be erroneous to say the least. I don't think I made any comments on the merit of the judgement. You are free to file an appeal in the SC if you are an aggrieved party.

As it is, law enforcement in our country does not work on the basis of court orders in these matters. They will do only what the government circular tells them to. In this case, until and unless the MoRTH specifically instructs the respective transport ministry in all states to enforce this particular judgement, no one is going to be affected outside of Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu will definitely be affected (unless someone gets the SC to grant a stay) as the Hon'ble Judge has asked the ACS (Transport) of Tamil Nadu to enforce the same and file a compliance report by the 30th of September.

[PaddleShifter]

Originally Posted by sierrabravo98

…but you completely missed the point of my post. My post was intended towards members who believed that they would have to pony up the entire premium for 5 years at the time of purchasing the vehicle. I simply said that such an assumption would be erroneous…

I had understood the point you made perfectly (annual payment vs one time payment for 5 years) and agree with you that there is no mention of a one time payment. In the Jeep compass example I have given, I mentioned about annual payments over 5-6 years for this reason.

The reason I tagged your post is because while no one is indeed forcing anyone to buy this B2B policy as a one time purchase, it is still being forced upon the masses. Thats the only point I wanted to make.

As far as the challenging the decision in SC is concerned, I would rather pay for bumper to bumper insurance for five years rather than challenge the decision in SC.

[superbad]

Originally Posted by sen2693

Wait, I have to now pay 5 years of insurance premium at the time of registration? Like if my premium for 1 year OD and 3 year third party was 30K, now I would have to pay 1L+ probably for insurance alone at time of registration?

Or am I reading it wrong?

Originally Posted by audioholic

You read it right but you calculated it slightly wrong. You will have to also add the cost of NDP over OD for five years. While for the first year it would not increase the cost of the premium, since depreciation sets in from second year to cover this up the NDP add on would start increasing. Hence, thats the additional cost along with the premium for five years.

Originally Posted by sunilch

Though the insurance company may give you discount based on your past history of owning other vehicles, for first time buyers - they are doomed. Buying a new vehicle is surely going to be more expensive. Not to mention, dealers forcing you to pick their provider and policy, which is another windfall for them in terms of commissions.

If this goes national, then I believe companies will come with a policy to return/adjust left over premium in case of total loss of vehicle before 5 hears. But until then, simply pay and think of it as a mandatory donation when buying a new car.

I think you have misinterpreted the order, it simply states that b2b insurance has to be there for the first five years, meaning, renew every year for first 5 years (which is the current practice). It doesn't stipulate for a single-premium insurance valid for 5 years (which would be frightfully expensive & out of budget for most car buyers).

[brd]

Originally Posted by Jude300

Very absurd indeed and I am not sure if this will take flight. Could be challenged at the Supreme Court.

The contentious judgement on use of sun films; how many government vehicles are driven with sun films? How many politicians follow that? How many times do we see a policeman riding his bike without a helmet?

End of the day the lay man is in the quandary and takes the beating.

Absolutely, and very well said.
This judgment should be challenged, and before that, a stay must be obtained.
And as Lavrentiy Beria's infamous quote goes “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” it seems some actions done by some elite or 'haves' are never crimes, but necessities. And, we Mango People (Aam Aadmi) have to believe in the saying "you show me the man and I show you the rule", for we have only one Rule, "Follow the Rule".

[amitayu]

I love my Car. I took zero-dep insurance on my car to protect it. We really need to see insurance in a different light, as means of securing something we love. Simply concluding that bumper-bumper will hike car price and hence this is a conspiracy is seeing things to bluntly.

Even while I spend 7 years with my previous car paying insurance without ever claiming it, taking full-coverage recently paid its 'dividend'.

I have recently shifted town amidst the COVID crisis and am still getting used to the new roads and sensibilities in my new route. Recently, I was sandwiched between a Tata Ace (that bumped me from behind) and a Bolero in front, in bumper to bumper traffic on an overbridge. To cut a long story short, an immediate visit to the Showroom suggested major damage to front bumper, bonnet (it was slightly bend) and headlights. SC suggested total damage worth INR 38,000. Thankfully, it was to be all covered under insurance (I had to pay only INR 2,400). I just left my car with full assurance and took a cab back home for the night, knowing that my car is cared for.

This is a peace of mind, an assurance, following 2 hours of ordeal and tension, that would have surely peaked if I were to discover the damages that I would have to shell our for. You really cannot put a price on that.

Most people look at lowest minimum insurance just to get a car to drive on the roads, and would rather splurge of accessories than insurance. This is a problematic mind-set that needs to change, or else our Industry will never mature.

However, for commercial cars, this does raise a concern, especially at times of COVID when operational costs have escalated and revenues are limited.

[audioholic]

Originally Posted by superbad

I think you have misinterpreted the order, it simply states that b2b insurance has to be there for the first five years, meaning, renew every year for first 5 years (which is the current practice). It doesn't stipulate for a single-premium insurance valid for 5 years (which would be frightfully expensive & out of budget for most car buyers).

No misinterpretation mate. My problem is not with single premium for five years or five different payments. The issue lies with the court dictating what add on a person has to choose for insurance especially something like nil depreciation policy. While I have been opting for it all the time when provided with my vehicles, that need not be mandated for everyone irrespective of they having to pay for five years upfront or not.

[Anees_Offl]

Originally Posted by audioholic

No misinterpretation mate. My problem is not with single premium for five years or five different payments. The issue lies with the court dictating what add on a person has to choose for insurance especially something like nil depreciation policy. While I have been opting for it all the time when provided with my vehicles, that need not be mandated for everyone irrespective of they having to pay for five years upfront or not.

Agree to your views on this. This is really confusing for normal ppl and if its a dictate, its going to get very difficult to be fulfilled. Hopefully someone challenges this soon and clear the confusion too.

[itsbaman]

Doesn't that mean Motor Vehicle Act needs to be ammended? I mean this can't be implemented without including it in Motor Vehicle Act.