[honeybee]

I think there would be some proportion of owners/drivers who are encouraged by such policies to be careless. For me, for e.g., no matter what the insurance policy was, scratching your car would be a big no-no. However this may also be in part because I have previously had to pay for such damages out of my pockets.

If I am the first time owner who has barely learnt to drive and can afford a premium car, I would never realize that I am not 'supposed to' scratch the car at all! For me it would just be a part and parcel of driving and I wouldn't realize (or care to learn) that I could avoid all the minor and major accidents by being careful.

That's the recipe for disaster.

[ghodlur]

Originally Posted by vskesavan

At least the government can give some subsidy in insurance premium for those maintaining their vehicles without any claim for more than three years.

Unfortunately the govt does not have any say in this as most of the powers are vested with the Insuracee companies who often come up with an innovative products of their own. Of course there is a regulatory body whose sole responsibility is to ensure that the Insurers dont play with people's mind with attractive but ineffective products.

I had read in papers that Insurers are proposing Car Insurance premiums based on the individual's profession which means that doctors, teachers, lawyers and other public servants would be subjected to lesser premiums which if legalised would again leave the playfield open for such people to misuse the advantages.

[kutts]

Looks like IRDA is planning to introduce a two - year term insurance

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...w/17643744.cms

[zenren]

Promoting careless driving? Probably No.
Promoting unnecessary claims? Yes, especially among first time car buyers getting a brand new car. These folks are mostly not aware of the importance of NCB, 'accident free' status on resale value etc. Since this car would be a dream come true in these cases, even a scratch would not be tolerated and would be fixed by them at the first oppurtunity. The workshops, especially the authorized ones usually advise them to claim insurance even for the minor repairs due to prospect of a very high bill that they can charge.

Probably the insurance companies should put a minimum amount for the zero depreciation claims to prevent misuse- something like claim amount should be at least 5% of the car cost or more to avail zero depreciation. Any claims in this category would also rip the car off the 'accident free' status and hence the owners would be careful not to go for this route unless it is absolutely necessary. This would prevent people claiming unnecessarily but at the same time help genuine cases which are most likely to cross this minimum amount anyway.

Another option they can probably look at would be a higher premium and a higher NCB model, which would make the insurance a costly affair for those who actually claim while providing it at the same levels as now for those who never claim, thanks to the discounts via NCB.

[Gansan]

I don't think so! No owner will like to have a banged-up and repaired car as opposed to a scratch free one, if he can help it! However good the repair job is, it takes away the feel good factor.

[honeybee]

Day before yesterday I had a weird experience. While returning from office, on the main road outside Dombivli, there's a crossing where many auto-rickshaws and two-wheelers join the main road from the left side only to cut across to the rightmost lane to turn right at the next intersection (hardly a few metres) to visit a petrol pump located.

At this intersection, an Audi enters the main road. The driver is viewing the oncoming traffic from his right, but he is still inching forward without any intention to stop and let the cars go. He has the stupidity to occupy half the width of the road before he gives in and lets me pass. No respect for the traffic on the main road, no respect for crashing into any vehicles, but simply the arrogance of riding a premium and safer car, backed by the knowledge that in case of any body damage the car will be as good as brand new thanks to the insurance company.

This is one example of the foolishness or arrogance of the driver/owner being fuelled by such schemes.

The economics of owning a car should be such that the owner should find it extremely costly to repair a damaged car. That's the sureshot way to prevent accidents out of carelessness.

[manolin]

Originally Posted by honeybee

but simply the arrogance of riding a premium and safer car, backed by the knowledge that in case of any body damage the car will be as good as brand new thanks to the insurance company.

This is one example of the foolishness or arrogance of the driver/owner being fuelled by such schemes.

The economics of owning a car should be such that the owner should find it extremely costly to repair a damaged car. That's the sureshot way to prevent accidents out of carelessness.

The extrapulation you have made is way over the top. I have seen n number of similar brain freezes in the middle of traffic by people in all sorts of cars or motorbikes.

In this thread and generally about street incidents, we should distinguish cases of lack of road awareness and driver training to instances where you genuinely know/feel that the carelessness or rash is promoted due to a zero dep insurance scheme - they are separate.

Any criticism of a street incident should be evaluated only on the basis of his/her driving training, since any case of rash driving is failure of his/her training. I say this only because otherwise we will start going into ownership strata of society/company ownership and general demographics for which there are very few statistics in this country.

[honeybee]

Let's imagine the owner has to pay for any denting and painting out of his own pocket. Do you think people will be extra cautious just because they know if there's even a brush, they will have to shell out a few hundred bucks from their pockets?

Would there be any change in the driving style if only third party insurance were sold, and self damage were not covered? I think there would.

My only argument is there is a strong possibility this encourages people to be more irresponsible, because they aren't paying for their actions.

[ninjatalli]

Originally Posted by honeybee

Let's imagine the owner has to pay for any denting and painting out of his own pocket. Do you think people will be extra cautious just because they know if there's even a brush, they will have to shell out a few hundred bucks from their pockets?

Would there be any change in the driving style if only third party insurance were sold, and self damage were not covered? I think there would.

My only argument is there is a strong possibility this encourages people to be more irresponsible, because they aren't paying for their actions.

Actually there is no 100% co-relation between the incident and the cause (zero-dep). Forget Audi, I have seen auto-rickshaws too doing that. I am pretty sure they don't have a zero dep clause to depend on Basically it is pure stupidity of the driver and a bit of arrogance and lack of traffic sense. Specially for a lot of these premium car owners, it would/could be company owned; so the costs don't really pinch them that hard enough as it would do to a personal car owner. Zero-dep being the cause of such cases is a long shot - several other reasons take precedence over it.

[nilpat]

Originally Posted by coolboy007

What i have observed with zero dep policies is that as other things, people are abusing the service. A friend of mine proudly told me that his bonnet had a very small dent which would have fixed outside but he wanted a new bonnet as he had a zero dep policy so he used his sick mind to hammer it and claim a new bonnet, get all other dents removed and pay a meagre 1000 claim charges, all i could do after listening to him was

I have similar case wherein dent is non reversible or it wont look good after repairing as per body shop guys and suggested me to replaced bumper by claiming zero depth insurance and now I'm tempted to claim it