[tortoise]

Originally Posted by Spitfire

That's just absurd. If the logic is that if you travel more you will come up with more insurance claims that stretching the absurdity to Himalayan proportions.

Is nt the reason why commercial vehicles insurance premium are higher compared to private vehicles? Commercial vehicles tend to be driven around more,leading to higher risk/claim exposure, which is the reason why the insurance premium is high. It looks like this logic is extended.

Again from an insurer standpoint, they are not looking at what you are doing ( to quote Poitive's example of using a diesel car over 6 years ), but what you might possibly do. Now, cant you clock 1 lac km in just 2 years with a petrol car? of course, you can, but at what cost

assuming that a petrol car gives you a mileage of 12 km per ltr and Diesel can give you 15 km per ltr. Let us say petrol cost 70Rs and Diesel Rs 45 a ltr. For lac km, the spend on petrol will be 5,83,000Rs whereas for Diesel it could have been 3,00,000Rs. An additional spend of ~3 lac Rs.

That is where the buyer's perspective comes to play. If I know that I will clock a lac km in 2 years, I will definitely go with diesel. This is exactly what insurers want to take advantage of. I agree that this is not in the best interest of a customer, but given the claims of mounting loss from insurance folks, they chose an easy way out. But, it needs to be seen, if this will yield the result they are looking for

[Spitfire]

Originally Posted by selfdrive

Also, isnt that why they give the NCB, as a carrot for not making claims?

Absolutely!!!

Originally Posted by tortoise

Is nt the reason why commercial vehicles insurance premium are higher compared to private vehicles?

Dude, dude.. No comparison man. Commercial and personal vehicles are poles apart man. No argument here.

Commercial vehicles tend to be driven around more,leading to higher risk/claim exposure, which is the reason why the insurance premium is high. It looks like this logic is extended.

LOGIC!!!! If it is I think its totally skewed if that's what the thought is. Well.. I was talking about the absurdity levels earlier. If that's the rational they are using then that absurdity broke new grounds.

How can commercial vehicles and personal vehicles be bucketed together only because of the engine they run use a common fuel?

And the assumption that diesel vehicles run more because commercial diesel vehicles do. LOL!!!

Again from an insurer standpoint, they are not looking at what you are doing ( to quote Poitive's example of using a diesel car over 6 years ), but what you might possibly do. Now, cant you clock 1 lac km in just 2 years with a petrol car? of course, you can, but at what cost

Tell me in a insurer's point of view in a country which has the highest rate of accidents in the world will I form a policy around how much a vehicle runs or will I form it on how many accidents the vehicle has got into or is likely to get into?

Simple isnt it? This is whole lot of bull crap. To put it mildly.

assuming

Any statement starting with that word is like saying every individual can drive over a cliff so the insurance premium will be 50% of your cars worth every year.

If one assumes it leaves the field open to any conclusion.

But, it needs to be seen, if this will yield the result they are looking for

LOL!! So by increasing premium a diesel vehicle will be driven less and there will be less claims? Hilarious man. Seriously.

PS: This post is not against you personally. But since people tend to take my posts personally. I am adding this disclaimer. Please concentrate on the matter.

[tortoise]

You ended your post with a disclaimer. I dont personally mind being enlightened on few things that you have chosen to leave.

Originally Posted by Spitfire

Dude, dude.. No comparison man. Commercial and personal vehicles are poles apart man. No argument here.

Tell me ( and if you can quote a rule book, perfect!) why should the commercial vehicle premium be higher than a private vehicle? in the country of poor, is the insurer subsidizing premiums of private vehicles?

Originally Posted by Spitfire

Tell me in a insurer's point of view in a country which has the highest rate of accidents in the world will I form a policy around how much a vehicle runs or will I form it on how many accidents the vehicle has got into or is likely to get into?

In this country, where the insurer cant depend on the mileage quoted by vehicles odometer, they definitely have to look at some other mechanism. It is unfortunate, but, that is the fact of life

Originally Posted by Spitfire

LOL!! So by increasing premium a diesel vehicle will be driven less and there will be less claims? Hilarious man. Seriously.

you think insurers are worried only about reducing the claims? they are also worried about increasing their premium collection. To me, believing that insurers are worried only about reducing the claims is hilarious!

Originally Posted by Spitfire

Please concentrate on the matter.

I see!

Originally Posted by Spitfire

Any statement starting with that word is like saying every individual can drive over a cliff so the insurance premium will be 50% of your cars worth every year.

If one assumes it leaves the field open to any conclusion.

Most of the policies are framed partly on facts and partly on assumptions ( read forward looking ).In most cases, assumptions do help in reaching a conclusion, by controlling the scope. Please dont belittle the power of assumption.

[Spitfire]

Originally Posted by tortoise

You ended your post with a disclaimer. I dont personally mind being enlightened on few things that you have chosen to leave.

The disclaimer is a general one. Not at you.

Tell me ( and if you can quote a rule book, perfect!) why should the commercial vehicle premium be higher than a private vehicle? in the country of poor, is the insurer subsidizing premiums of private vehicles?

Tangible gains in a commercial endeavor.

On private vehicles the insurance is based on? Should give you the answer.

There is no subside.

In this country, where the insurer cant depend on the mileage quoted by vehicles odometer, they definitely have to look at some other mechanism. It is unfortunate, but, that is the fact of life

I find the idea of insurance premium to be a factor of kms/miles run is absurd.

Include age of the vehicle and driver liability and we are talking.

you think insurers are worried only about reducing the claims? they are also worried about increasing their premium collection. To me, believing that insurers are worried only about reducing the claims is hilarious!

Ever dug up the claims to premium collected ratio presently?

I see!

Not yet.

Most of the policies are framed partly on facts and partly on assumptions ( read forward looking ).In most cases, assumptions do help in reaching a conclusion, by controlling the scope.

If its backed with research and trends, its not assumption. Its probability. Measurable. Assumption is not.

Please dont belittle the power of assumption.

I don't believe in assumptions.

[tortoise]

Originally Posted by Spitfire

Tangible gains in a commercial endeavor.

On private vehicles the insurance is based on? Should give you the answer.

There is no subside.

Interesting! An insurer is basing a premium decision on a customer gaining out of it or not! Excellent viewpoint mate!

Let us conclude that each of us are not going to subscribe to other's viewpoint and leave it at that! Long live democracy!

[Poitive]

I am no expert here and insurance experts, please do correct me here. But from what I understand, a major factor in fixing the insurance premiums is based on two major criteria:
(1) Risk of things going wrong.
(2) Payment the insurance company is to make, if things do go wrong.

Now to fix a premium, there could be various ways to determine how much the risk is on a case to case basis. It could take a lot of resources to do so. Hence, there are generalizations. Generalizations can't be perfect. Generalizations work in favour of some and against some.

Now my point in post no. 13 (unlucky no? ) ( http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian...ml#post2405588 ) was to say that in this "diesel generalization", such people who opt for diesel cars based on "total usage" would suffer.

Now, let us take thought process further. In which case does the risk of the insurance company increase in the following examples?

(A) A car which remains stationary.
(B) A car which runs a few kms every month (say 200/month)
(C) A car which is used very highly (say 5k a month - yes, we have a member who uses his cars as much)

Sure there could be exceptions, but the likelihood of things going wrong (for the insurance company to pay up) would be highest in case (C) if a large enough sample size was considered.

I don't have a problem in accepting that cars which run more are likely to cost the company more in terms of insurance claims (also consider third party claims).

Now this is regardless of whether one runs more if one buys a diesel car, or if one buys a diesel car because one has to run more. It is not relevant to the insurance company.

Where I did have some problem is in the generalization that if one buys a Diesel car, one would run it more on an annual basis.

If we are to meaningfully take this discussion forward, let us do so constructively and with due respect to each other. Also, discussing with links to articles, data and other references may be useful in making it a constructive discussion.

PS: There could be a lot many other reasons for the risk to increase (age of driver, "challans"/tickets/driving history, car condition, safety features, etc) , but we aren't focusing on them here.

[tortoise]

Originally Posted by Poitive

Where I did have some problem is in the generalization that if one buys a Diesel car, one would run it more on an annual basis.

I am with you on that. All I was trying to convey ( i made it clear in one of the post) is that the Insurance company is in the business ( money making) and they may not take a lenient view of what one does vs what one can do. With other mechanisms of monitoring virtually non existent, they will take the steps necessary to bump up their profit and very often adversely impact a section of customers.

In essence, I am not saying that diesel car owners should be penalized by imposing more premium ( especially, when I have decided that my next car will be diesel ). Instead, if you look at it wearing an Insurer's glass, they may have struck an opportunity to collect more premium. Most certainly, they have the blessings from auto industry, as the industry look at means of reviving sale of petrol vehicles.

Originally Posted by Poitive

If we are to meaningfully take this discussion forward, let us do so constructively and with due respect to each other. Also, discussing with links to articles, data and other references may be useful in making it a constructive discussion.

. Cant agree with you more.