Asertividad vs pasividad y agresividad

Q. Due to sudden breakage of steering rod, a private car, driven by a paid driver, goes off the road and collides with the compound wall and gate of a factory. The insured has submitted a claim under a private car comprehensive policy in respect of the following :

a) Repair of damage to the radiator and engine.

b) Replacement of left front tyre totally damaged.

c) Replacement of steering rod.

d) Replacement of windscreen, which was smashed to pieces.

e) Claim from the paid driver (Under W.C. Act) for temporary total disablement due to injuries sustained in the accident.

Indicate how you would deal with each of the above items of claims from the point of view of:

i) Liability under the policy.

ii) Amount of claim payable.

Ans. a) Repair of damage to the radiator and engine - Insurers are liable under the policy and actual cost is payable.

b) Replacement of left front tyre totally damaged - Insurers are liable under the policy and actual cost is payable.

c) Replacement of steering rod - Being mechanical breakdown not covered under the policy, hence not payable.

d) Replacement of windscreen which was smashed to pieces - Insurers are liable under the policy and actual cost is payable if this being an extra fittings is covered.

e) Claim from the paid driver - Policy covers W.C.

Liability. Hence the following amount shall become payable as per provisions of W.C. Act:

A half-monthly payment of sum equivalent to 25% of monthly wages. This payment shall be payable on the 16th day

(i) from the date of disablement where such disablement lasts for a period of twenty-eight days or more: or

(ii) after the expiry of waiting period of three days from the

date of disablement where such disablement lasts for a period of less than twenty-eight days.

On the ceasing of the disablement before the date of which any half monthly payment falls due, there shall be payable in respect of that half-month a sum proportionate to the duration of the disablement in that half month. The compensation under this clause is payable for maximum 5 years.

Q. Discuss the insurer's liability under Standard Motor Policies ‘B’ for following claims.

a) Loss of horn by theft from a motor cycle.

b) Accident damage to an ornamental hub-cap of a private car.

c) Damage to the cabin due to an accident to a public carrier, the estimated repair cost of which is Rs.1475/-.

d) Death of an employee of the owner of the goods carrier who was travelling in the lorry at the time of the accident.

Ans.

a) Standard Motor Cycle Policy does not cover the loss of or damage to accessories by burglary, house-breaking or theft unless the Motor Cycle is stolen at the same time. Hence the insurer is not liable, for the loss of the horn, an accessory by theft from a Motor Cycle.

b) Extra fitting are to be covered specifically. The ornamental hub cap is an extra fitting. Insurer is not liable under the standard Motor Car Policy B for its loss of or damage unless it is got covered by specifically adding this hub cap as extra fitting.

c) The standard Motor Policy B covering a public carrier is subject to a compulsory excess of Rs. 1500 as per the endorsement No.26. Since the estimated repair cost is less than Rs. 1500, there is no liability under the Policy.

d) Under the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of a lorry (goods vehicles) it is required to cover employees being carried in the vehicle. Hence the insurer is liable for employee of the owner of the goods carrier who was travelling in the

(116) lorry at the time of the accident.

Q. The insured gives the car keys to his watchman every day for cleaning the car. One day the watchman, after cleaning the car, drove it outside the building compound without a valid driving licence and met with serious accident, resulting into damage to car and serious injuries to a pedestrian. The insured is having Private Car Policy 'B' for the Car. Discuss the Insurer's Liability.

Ans. - For admission of liability under the policy, the watchman driving the car at the time of accident must hold a valid driving licence entitling him to drive LMV. In the instant case the watchman who drove the car at the time of accident was without a valid driving licence. Hence the insurers are liable neither for damage to car nor for personal injuries to the pedestrian.

Q. A Luxury Tourist Bus 1987 Model carrying 35 passengers was involved in a serious accident on 5.6.90 resulting in death of Driver and two passengers and injuries to 15 passengers. Bus was insured under policy 'B' with unlimited liability to passengers. Other details are as under:

a) Insured of Rs. 400000

b) Fatal injuries to paid driver Rs 80000

c) Fatal injuries to two passengers Rs. 135000 (each) d) Minor injuries to 15 passengers Rs. 80000 (total e) Repairs Rs. 50000

f) Replacement of parts Rs. 25000 g) Salvage Rs. 3000

i) Discuss the insurer's liability.

(ii) Would the position be different in case the driver was holding LMV driving licence and had applied for HMV licence on 31.12.89 to the R.T.O.

Ans. - (i) Presuming that the driver was holding valid driving licence – with an endorsement to drive transport

vehicle and was also possessing badge, the insurers are liable under the policy to pay the claim as under:

a) No relevance except in the case of total loss.

b), c) and d) payable under Section II of the policy presuming the amount is awarded by the court or compromised.

e, f) and g) - The amount payable will be as under:

Repairs Rs. 50000

Replacement of Parts Rs. 25000

Less: depreciation for the age of vehicle being between 3 to 4 years: 50% for rubber, Plastic Parts, and battery and 25% for other parts replaced. If the damages include tyres, lamps, mudguards, bonnet side parts, bumpers and paintwork they are excluded under Endt. No. 26.

Less: Excess as per Endt. No 26 Rs. 1500

Less: salvage Rs. 3000

(ii) Presuming that the driver applied for HMV licence - The vehicle in question is H.M.V. The driver is holding LMV licence. Mere applying for HMV licence does not entitle the person to drive Bus. Hence unless there is a pucca driving licence, insurers are not liable.

Q. How do you deal with the following enquiries in respect of Motor Policies?

(a) Comprehensive Policy for a public carrier with extra cover for loss or damage to tyres.

(b) Act policy for Motor Cycle with the additional benefit of PA. cover to the owner.

(c) Comprehensive Policy for a private car in the joint names of the registered owner and financier.

(d) Liability to the public risk Policy for a scooter owned by private company with a request for A.A. Membership discount.

Ans. (a) Endorsement No.26 does not cover the loss of or damage to tyre. However by paying extra premium it can be covered under IMT 74

(b) No additional cover /extra benefit can be granted under an Act Policy. PA. cover to the owner can be granted in

(118) Conjunction with B Policy only.

(c) It is not permissible as per the Motor Tariff to issue Policies in joint names. The financier's interest can be recorded in the Policy be way of endorsement.

(d) The A.A. Membership discount can not be allowed on vehicles owned by firms or companies as it is available only for vehicles owned by individuals and joint owners.

Q. A goods carrying vehicle (general cartage) is insured under Commercial Vehicle B Policy without extra benefit.

It met with an accident inside a factory compound.

Following claims have been lodged:

a) Damage to the mudguard and/or bonnet side parts, head light and bumper the estimated loss of which is Rs. 2000/-.

b) Death of a coolie carried in the vehicle.

c) Damage to the car of the owner of the goods carrying vehicle which happened to accompany the lorry inside the private place at the material time of the accident.

d) Injury to the driver's friend travelling in the vehicle.

e) Damage to stereo.

How will you deal with claims?

Ans. Although the accident occurred inside a factory compound which is not a public place it is covered under the B Policy. The claims shall be dealt as under:

a) Damages to the mudguard and/or bonnet side parts, head light and bumper are excluded under IMT No.26. Hence there is no liability under the policy.

b) The insurers are liable under Section II of the policy.

c) Section II of the Policy excludes liability in respect of damage to property belonging to the insured. Hence no liability.

d) The driver's friend was travelling in the vehicle as a non-fare paying passenger and not in the course of or arising out of any employment. The insurers are not liable for his injury claim as policy is without extra benefit for legal liability to non-fare paying passengers.

e) Extra fitting are to be covered specifically. The stereo is an extra fitting. Insurer is not liable under the Policy B for its loss of or damage unless it is got covered by specifically adding it as extra fitting.

Q. State, with reasons, the extent of liability of an insurer under appropriate standard forms of Motor Policies "B":-a) Insured was driving his own Goods Carrying Vehicle General Cartage, and suffered personal injury due to accident.

He claimed for Workmen's Compensation.

b) Theft of a rear left tyre of contract carriage from the parked place. Policy is subject to Endorsement 26.

c) Tape Recorder-cum-Radio stolen from a Private car at the spot of accident.

d) Damage to a motor cycle whilst the insured was participating in organised racing.

e) Due to a mechanical defect, the steering rod of a Tourist Taxi, breaks and meets with an accident. Insured claimed damages to steering rod, head lamps, front bumper and right mudguard.

f) Loss of the insured's limb due to accident whilst travelling in his car.

Ans.

a) Though the insured was the driver of the vehicle, he is not employee. So he can not claim for Workmen's Compensation.

b) Under IMT 26 Except in case of Total Loss the insurers are not liable for loss of or damage to lamps, tyres, mudguards and/or paint work. Hence there is no liability for theft of a rear left tyre of contract carriage from the parked place.

c) e) Electronic items and Extra fitting are to be covered specifically. The Tape Recorder-cum-Radio is an extra fitting.

Insurer is not liable under the Policy B for its loss of or damage unless it is got covered by specifically adding it as extra fitting.

d) Damage to a motor cycle whilst the insured was participating in organised racing is not payable as policy

(120) excludes organised racing

e) Damage to the steering rod is mechanical break doen which is excluded under the policy. However loss of head lamps, front bumper and right mudguard is payable as Policy for Tourist Taxi is not subject to IMT 26.

f) The policy is not extended to cover personal accident risk.

Further Section II of the policy covers liability to third parties and not to the insured. Hence insurers are not liable.