[ishan12]

I believe the expectation here is to receive more money than what was paid for the vehicle 5 years ago, as the price of the vehicle would have gone up in those years.
IMO this is not a fair expectation unless the insurance terms and conditions specifically mention that the current price of the vehicle will be paid.

[kurmist]

I could be wrong, but doesn't the nomenclature of the policy; Return to Invoice; explain it all. To my mind, this means that in case of a total loss (or any full claim scenario) you would return to the invoice paid by the buyer (ex-showroom + road tax + insurance + whatever else) and that would be the claim amount? And hopefully the settlement amount. If not, then shouldn't the policy be called "Replacement of Vehicle at Future Market Value" policy? Or some such similar nomenclature?

I am genuinely not trying to be facetious here. Just trying to understand where the mismatch is between expectations and actuality.

[Altocumulus]

I don’t understand what the confusion is. I too opt for RTI on all my new cars. Currently both my cars are out of production and discontinued models.

Incase of total loss you will get what you paid for the car. Your IDV was also calculated on that in the first year. Why will you get today’s inflated price. It’s Return to Invoice. So you give the invoice you paid and get that. Simple.

Some companies give Vehicle Replacement rider in place of RTI. There it is mentioned in case you will get a new vehicle or if discontinued an equivalent vehicle of the same invoice price.

[balenoed_]

This isn't any LIC policy to get returns with bonus. The logic implied in the original post reminds me of central govts one rank one pension scheme.

As mentioned, it is "return" to invoice of the vehicle insured, not to take forward to the invoice of a currently sold model. Not sure if OP is serious about this claim.

I guess the insurance company is defending by not clarifying properly. Instead of defending by saying the car is discontinued (which is anyway irrelevant), they may be better off by just explaining the claimant what RTI actually means.

Btw, I thought RTI add on is given for 0 to ~3yrs old vehicles only.

[BhayanaV]

I remember reading about insurance principles long back that no insured should stand to make a profit out of a general insurance. I guess this still applies.
Also, the IDV in the current policy is generally considered the overriding cap and I have experienced insurance companies reducing the maximum offered IDV in last couple of years.
So even if I take RTI or other add-on but doesn't realize that that my IDV is reduced, I think these add-on will not be useful?

[RMN]

Even my understanding is similar to what many of the members are mentioning here. RTI fully pays what you paid during purchase and nothing more.

But the questions is, as per the OP's post even the insurer isn't pushing on this point rather they are arguing on the variants availability? Probably why the OP is confused?

Shouldn't the insurer simply say "we will pay you whatever you paid during purchase" rather than arguing Sigma variants availability.

[ruzbehxyz]

Ideally if you are getting what you paid during purchase, its a profit anyway, as you used the car for 5 years. Anything additional is nothing but greed for profit.

[Gaur]

Looks to be an interesting scheme. but devil lies in the details (wordings)

Difference between IDV and Original Purchase Invoice value OR Current Invoice value of the same new vehicle/variant (which ever is lower) will be reimbursed

looking at the current scenario it is no way possible that the cost of any vehicle has reduced from past 2-3 years (exceptions in 2 wheelers, bajaj Dominar 250/FZ250 prices reduced) so only possibility is, being paid the difference based on Original purchase invoice.

Even in the other case, if the new vehicle of same variant existed at a reduced price then what was purchased 2-3yrs back it would have been a loss for the customer as Insurance will pay the lesser of the 2 amounts.

[Axe77]

It’s very clear from the SBI image in Gaur’s post that the RTI insurance policy is meant to reimburse you the full invoice value that you “actually paid” for your car (instead of only receiving IDV in a normal policy). The additional language is to cover the rare scenario where the exact same model is available today at a “lower” cost than what the purchaser originally paid for it - I guess the logic being that in that case the lower amount will put the policy holder in the same position by buying the same car.

Responding to some other posts, let’s not put words like greed and profit. It’s an insurance product for which the customer is paying premium - for RTI, enhanced premium. It seems that in this case perhaps the OP has misunderstood what the policy entitles him to. If the insurance policy is paying out his invoice value in such a policy it seems like its the correct settlement.

[Chetan_Rao]

The OP's argument makes no sense.

Aren't all calculations on a policy done based on the original sale invoice? Why does she now suddenly expect an exception for RTI value calculation?

She wasn't expected to pay the difference to Toyota and the RTO every time prices went up in the last 5 years, so why does she feel entitled to get extra money she didn't pay?

[ninjatalli]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

The OP's argument makes no sense.

+1

I think this is a perfect example of multiple bhpians running up the wrong tree due to partial and (at times) conflicting information shared by the OP (who apparently is a member according to her initial post but chooses not to use it or she's bluffing).

OP wanted only one input from the forum - technical documentation that will somehow prove her view that the 2021 (/current) version of the car is the same model as what she bought 5 years ago and basis that she'll be able to negotiate better with the insurance firm. No other clear details provided.

Clearly she's trying her luck for the same with multiple Toyota showrooms (as mentioned in the initial posts) and now also trying with this forum. I would request/suggest mods to lock this thread till there's a proper update from the OP. Else all we'll be doing is just useless banter with no purpose.

[theautoman]

apologies for digressing, I do not understand how RTI also coves the Road Tax which was paid at the time of purchase, if the OP receives the Invoice Value + Road Tax of the car.
will he or she still be able to get the RC cancelled and get a refund of the unused tax amount?

[headbanger]

By the very definition of how insurance is described and defined, you cannot make profit out of an insurance product.

My question is that if the same model would have been in the market even today, but with an inflated OTR cost, will the insurance company offer the new car with the higher OTR cost? I highly doubt it.

Logically the max insurance company should pay is the total OTR cost that the customer would have paid when purchasing the car. Unless this ain't happening, I would love to be educated on the final outcome.

Conversely, my mind in devil mode is also playing out various conversations around how this policy can be mis-sold.

[Wizaro]

A friend of my father had his Creta stolen within 4-5 months of taking its delivery in 2019. He had RTI with ICICI-Lombard. His claim was settled on the OTR cost of a new Creta at the time of settlement and it was over by 1.5 lacs (approximately) compared to what he originally paid. The surveyor offered him two options - to either get the OTR cost of a new car at that time or to submit a letter if he specifically wanted the OTR cost of the car at the time that he had purchased it. The surveyor had also clarified to him that in case the particular model was discontinued, then he can have the OTR cost at the time till the car manufacturer has it on sale (just before discontinuing it). A facelift didn't count as a different model in his case.

To clarify, his Creta that was stolen was before the facelift and he got the price of the new facelifted Creta.

Hope this clears the queries.

[rageshgr]

Wow. Can you please change the title?. Title looks as if insurance company is rejecting the claim. I thought RTI meant you will be given what you originally paid for instead of the depreciated IDV. My understanding could be wrong. But you are getting the OTR of 2020 for a 2016 purchased car. Still the issue ?
Paste the exact wordings of the policy here.
What was the OTR price in 2016? What is the 2020 OTR? What is the 2021 OTR?