[audioholic]

I had been following this thread and initially I did not believe that the axle just gave away like that. Its very good to see professionals taking a look at the car and giving point blank analysis and rubbishing such false claims of manufacturing defect and so. Rather the owner should have had a second thought of what actually would have happened instead of making such a claim. What my guess is, since its a new car, the driver did not have a good judgement of the left. Since this is a narrow road where the accident happened, he has not managed to clear the culvert and has brushed it, causing all the damage. Bad judgement and considerable speed has caused this accident.

[narayans80]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Can insurance reject the claim on the basis of driver fault? Lots of accidents do happen due to driver fault. Are those drivers not getting insurance money? I thought comprehensive insurance cover was available irrespective of fault.

Yes, comprehensive insurance covers self damage as well. What insurance would reject is claims for damage that are inconsistent with the accident, the claim is made against.

[kiku007]

If TBHP Members mislead the forum, they are banned or receive infraction I guess.
Wondering what can be done to a non-member, like in this case?

Thinking out loud; ban for future membership perhaps?

[Rajeevraj]

Well, on the positive side, there was tons of useful insight shared in this thread over the course of 13 pages. In addition, it was this thread that triggered the detailed analysis by Mr. Shetty . Without this who know how this whole episode would have turned out.

Also, in spite of all the discussion, the opinion was divided as to whether this was an accident or a manufacturing defect. It required an close and detailed analysis by an expert to prove otherwise. So would not fully blame the owner/driver for raising this concern- Especially if he/she did not realize that they brushed the culvert.

[lapis_lazuli]

If the PRIMARY impact was the "acute angle" hit of the wheel and subsequent graze of (clip fitted) PLASTIC bumper against the concrete culvert (Cause) and the SECONDARY damage is the mess we see (Effect), made up mostly of cast metal and metallurgical marvel, why is the bumper still intact? Minimal damage actually. What makes us conclude that the bumper graze or scrape was NOT the SECONDARY event?

I mean the bumper still seems to be resting in its position with just a mild gash. (You know, the wrong reverse and the wall scrape type) . The bumper gash seems deep on the right hand side and fading out towards the left...not likely, if it was a direct crash IMHO.

The tyre cut could be due to the alloy shear/sharp edge eating in the rubber, as well! Again, which happened first? Not easy to say so soon.

Metallurgical flaws happen once in a while, even in space shuttles, (gearboxes, alloys, we have seen them under perform under pressure, haven't we ). Its a machine after all and discovered/undiscovered problems might exist and freak cases do happen! A recall for the rear twist beam issue is fresh, for example.

A "quick" verdict from an off duty actuary or a surveyor...I am not too sure. Its too early to stamp.

Of course, I am far from being an expert, and I will happily enlighten myself.

[arun_josie]

I am wondering how the Surveyor concluded on the below points even without visiting the accident spot?! In my opinion this is not something that could be analyzed just based on the pics(accident spot) posted in the OP. And how did he conclude that the driver was sleepy?! Illogical, I say.

He is being sarcastic as well.

"The culvert is width of the culvert is narrower than that of road marked with white lines that causes a sort of hypnosis; especially for sleepy eyes."

"The condition of road is so beautiful and one tends to drive fast that to on open road; less trafficked."

"You are a victim of "Poor Road Engineering" mainly due to "Sleepy Eyes in the wee hours of sunrise on a Long Drive" with little bit of "Highway Hypnosis" "

I will feel proud of you, if you utilise your smartness to sue the highway authorities for constructing a culvert that is narrower than the road as well as for its inadequate height of side walls that can be hardly seen while you drive

[Rehaan]

Originally Posted by lapis_lazuli

If the PRIMARY impact was the "acute angle" hit of the wheel and subsequent graze of (clip fitted) PLASTIC bumper against the concrete culvert (Cause) and the SECONDARY damage is the mess we see (Effect), made up mostly of cast metal and metallurgical marvel, why is the bumper still intact? Minimal damage actually.

Look at this pic shared 2 pages back by ganesc:

Pic courtesy - TGIndia.

You can see that the front wheels have an offset and stick out further than the plastic bumper.

The bumper might have just grazed the wall, while the wheel took a bigger hit.

[rajeev k]

Originally Posted by Rehaan

The bumper might have just grazed the wall, while the wheel took a bigger hit.

Quite right. The last picture of Post 157, is proof enough.

[drpullockaran]

Just playing the devils advocate here.

I feel that there is far more to it than meets the eye. What gets me wondering is how the car traveled in a straight line (skid marks or lack of it) even after being hit on the front left with considerable force. In all videos on YouTube of crash tests you will see that the car usually spins on its center of mass on impact and in this case the rear should have come asunder and the car should have skidded such that the car should have been facing at least perpendicular to the road with the car turned in the direction of the damaged out turned wheel. A picture of the culvert would do wonders for the investigation. Anyone travelling via that route would hit the nail on the head. It also could be that he hit the culvert after the tie-rod gave way or the tire hit a stone resulting in puncture and subsequent melee of incidences.

Lets see what the FORD survey concludes.

[djpeesh]

So an off duty surveyor came a conclusion and all of us suddenly blame the victim? Bravo.

Not to be a conspiracy theorist but do we know what interests he's representing?

I'm all for investigation but this assessment coupled with the heavy dose of sarcasm seems a bit unwarranted.

I once went a doctor after a motorcycle accident in Thailand. The doctor said I'd torn my meniscus. He recommended surgery after multiple tests. I got a second opinion. It was a displaced knee cap. All it needed was physio. Why am I saying this? Because even the best sometimes make mistakes.

From the look of the car, a seemingly minor graze should not break the front axle. Every metal part has a high stress bearing capability. I still find it so hard to believe that nudging a culvert can have so much impact only on one part and there's no change in trajectory, no change in the line, little sheet metal damage.

Off topic, let's not all behave like a mob and get so easily influenced. Posts such as "I hope his insurance claim is rejected" etc are exactly how a Lynch mob behaves. We're better than that.

[Sunilrj]

Originally Posted by arun_josie

I am wondering how the Surveyor concluded on the below points even without visiting the accident spot?! In my opinion this is not something that could be analyzed just based on the pics(accident spot) posted in the OP. And how did he conclude that the driver was sleepy?! Illogical, I say.

He is being sarcastic as well.

With all due respect to your scepticism most on his forum have drawn conclusions without visiting the accident spot nor closely inspecting the vehicle. The Surveyor has inspected the vehicle from close quarters.

how did he conclude the driver was sleepy ? In the course of my profession as a Chartered accountant and audits of insurance companies i have gone through thousands of cases of insurance claims where insurance investigators investigate the claim and arrive at a conclusion and closure of the case based on their training and experience; just like the police write a crime diary after visiting a crime spot! and the lawyers then argue based on these initial findings. yes he is being sarcastic since this post has been splattered on several Facebook pages and other social media with a title 'New Ford Loses Suspension/ axle on Highway' which is alarmist!

Originally Posted by djpeesh

So an off duty surveyor came a conclusion and all of us suddenly blame the victim? Bravo.

Not to be a conspiracy theorist but do we know what interests he's representing?

I'm all for investigation but this assessment coupled with the heavy dose of sarcasm seems a bit unwarranted.

.

Off Duty surveyor has inspected the vehicle unlike most of us who are discussing based on photographs. I wouldn't suspect his credentials like @sammurai said a few posts earlier. i'd rather be objective and rely on the photographic evidence presented by him who is technically qualified to comment on the matter. i

he isn't representing anyone, but since he is a member of several automotive groups, he came across this page reposted on Facebook and decided to suomoto make enquiries. whose interests would a court of law represent if it suomoto slaps a case on some person / politician ? I would say he did it in Public Interest!!

and i think you need to visit the Facebook link, and chat up directly with the surveyor than cast aspersions on his integrity.

[RoadSurfer]

Originally Posted by Rehaan

Thanks for sharing that Sunilrj.

I think it's now very clear from the pictures, as i suggested in my last post, that the car did in fact hit the culvert wall.

Take a bow Rehaan. You were spot on with your assessment. You have a new career option openend up

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by djpeesh

So an off duty surveyor came a conclusion and all of us suddenly blame the victim? Bravo.

Not to be a conspiracy theorist but do we know what interests he's representing?

I'm all for investigation but this assessment coupled with the heavy dose of sarcasm seems a bit unwarranted.
.

I agree whole heartedly. I don't doubt the content, but I just dont understand why a professional would want to post about this incident in the manner he has. He represents a profession that is ultimately about trust and integrity. So it would have been better if he had given full ransparency about his motives why he felt he should post, apparently in his professional capacity, on public media.

Now it just adds to the confusion. Some see him as more or less the Messiah, for others it just adds to the confusion. From somebody who apparently is a professional I would have expected a more transparent approach.

Jeroen

[Vid6639]

Originally Posted by djpeesh

From the look of the car, a seemingly minor graze should not break the front axle. Every metal part has a high stress bearing capability. I still find it so hard to believe that nudging a culvert can have so much impact only on one part and there's no change in trajectory, no change in the line, little sheet metal damage.

The car has not nudged the culvert. The front bumper is inset as shown in the above photo by Rehaan. The theory by the insurance surveyor is that the front bumper grazed the culvert but the tyre and wheel hit the culvert directly, not just a nudge causing the car to ricochet off the culvert. This loud thud and impact must have sounded like the tyre blown.

A few metres later when the car came to rest, the occupants would have gotten out and assumed that they didn't hit the culvert but had a tyre blow out and suspension failure.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

I agree whole heartedly. I don't doubt the content, but I just dont understand why a professional would want to post about this incident in the manner he has. He represents a profession that is ultimately about trust and integrity. So it would have been better if he had given full ransparency about his motives why he felt he should post, apparently in his professional capacity, on public media.

There is the ideal way to do this as you mentioned but in this case it appears that the person is putting on FB in an unofficial manner. Remember he was NOT the insurance surveyor for this car. He went to the showroom for some other car inspection and found this car at the dealer.

Having read about the car on social media and himself owning a similar vehicle he checked it out. Since he was an expert in this field but not officially involved he put the report on FB as an enthusiast/expert rather than in his professional capacity. Ofcourse he had to put his official designation for veracity.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

There is the ideal way to do this as you mentioned but in this case it appears that the person is putting on FB in an unofficial manner. Remember he was NOT the insurance surveyor for this car. He went to the showroom for some other car inspection and found this car at the dealer.



Having read about the car on social media and himself owning a similar vehicle he checked it out. Since he was an expert in this field but not officially involved he put the report on FB as an enthusiast/expert rather than in his professional capacity. Ofcourse he had to put his official designation for veracity.

From what I have read so far it is not clear at all what his assignment was, this particular car or another. The way he phrased it has at least the grammatical suggestion he was assigned to survey this particular car.

In a profession like this you can not distinguish between offering an "official" opinion as the expert in charge or a "personal" opinion. He does not say in what capacity he delivers this expert opinion either. That's why I believe surveyors and experts need to be abundantly clear from what position they deliver their opinion. Now its left to speculation and this thread is a good indication to that effect.

Think of it like this, next time you need a surveyor r expert. Say you have a very bad accident with a very expensive car. The car also happens to be part of a divorce settlement . Do you want to engage the services of a surveyor/expert who posts randomly on Facebook, or do you want somebody who maintains professional integrity.

Trust me, its not far fetched. Check some of my other post where I talk about my very good friend and spanner mate Peter back in the Netherlands. He is a full time (classic) car valuer, expert and surveyor. His reputation about integrity and expertise is what makes him valuable and gets him his business and customers. He never posts on social media on what he sees and experiences.

Jeroen