[Rodie09]

On the Volvo XC 90 tragedy, there is not really much that can be confidently said about how this particular car performed or how other car would have in same situation. There can be multiple parameters involved in such a fall on a vehicle which will determine outcome. A video or a pic showing a trailer resting on car roof does not really mean much because the actual accident dynamics in most cases will be different.

It is the momentum that smashed the roof here and not the weight of the trailer alone. Imagine a steel glass full of water kept on a glass coffee table. Now imagine same falling on the glass from a height of say a feet or two. That's the difference.
Really sad tragedy but not sure what can be done to prevent this in future till the time accidents are a common thing.

[TheHondaLover]

Originally Posted by chaitanyakrish

A container truck fell over a Volvo Car near Nelamngala,Bangalore. All 6 passengers in the car are no more.

We need more details. Aren't cars made to bear the strength of such impact and keep the occupants safe?

I'm drawing from a video which emerged last year where landslides induced multiple rocks falling down. One such rock hit one Tata Harrier and interestingly, everyone survived!

Would it be safe to assume that brunt of a container truck is similar to a rock falling from the mountain? A crushed car makes sense, but all six of the occupants unfortunately dead in a luxury sedan from world's de facto safest car maker.

Could they have survived the impact if they were in a suv like The X90? Are SUVs safer than sedan?

[Hayek]

Originally Posted by ashkamath

I am a Surveyor by profession with over 35 years experience and I can say with confidence that waiting for 5-10 years for claim settlement is far fetched. Times have changed. There's Motor vehicle tribunal, the insurance company ombudsman and the final authority, the IRDA. If the appropriate documents and proof is submitted, no insurance company will drag their feet in these matters. There's a vast difference as to how the claim process was earlier times and now.

I would be glad and delighted if that was the case. Please note that I was referring to third party claims where there is no loss of human life or physical injuries to people. Having studied financial models of general insurance companies, I believe there is a significant period that still exists between receipt of premium and settlement of third party motor claims - in fact the float income on that premium is something insurers consider while setting motor vehicle premia. And in cases where there is no loss of life, getting to the stage where fault is conclusively established takes even longer. Agree that own damage claims and claims for other property cases get settled quickly.


Please correct me if I am wrong.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Why not? If someone has caused damage to another, surely they have the right to demand payment. Surely, the existence of insurance does not preclude that, but provides a safety-net option.
One can always ask!

Of course one can ask. But as a request, not as a matter of right. Very often, the “asks” are accompanied by intimidation and the threat of violence. What you can legally do is file an FIR, follow up with an insurance claim and a civil suit, and see where you get.

[BullettuPaandi]

Originally Posted by Hayek

What you can legally do is file an FIR, follow up with an insurance claim and a civil suit, and see where you get.

Unfortunately, times have changed a bit towards worse, when it comes to filing FIRs however.

Since the introduction of CSR (Community Service Register), only 'cognisable' offences merit an FIR, such as: drunken driving, negligence to rules, serious injuries to the ones that got hit, etc. when it comes to road accidents. Basically, if the Policeman who is writing the complaint down isn't convinced that there's criminal intent in the incident, the issue is only taken down as an entry in the CSR, which doesn't warrant a criminal investigation. The policemen will only offer a sort of essentially 'receipt' that basically says 'this is notified to the Police and is present in the CSR register', which the accuser can present to the tribunal/court for whatever good that does.

What this basically amounts to is that, the accused won't have a complaint (FIR) on them anymore; only the accuser will have a complaint that they registered (CSR).

In theory, this sounds like a good idea, enabling the Police to efficiently solve minor nuisances, like a loud/disturbing neighbour, land document misinterpretations, etc., without burdening the courts with silly disputes. But in practice, I've come across quite a few questionable scenarios- including one that happened to a close family member- where I think the Police are rather abusing this to reduce their own burden, by downplaying the seriousness of the issue we face, and refusing to file an FIR.

Prior to introduction of CSRs, they initially wrote the complaint down in what is basically a log called General/Station Diary (GD), and then proceeded a preliminary 'basic' investigation to discern if it merits an FIR complaint and further 'full-fledged' investigation. The introduction of CSR, in my opinion, has only served to negate this basic investigation from the Police's side, without which new evidence will likely* never come to light, and most CSRs will never get 'promoted' to be FIRs.

* Evidences like CCTV or dashcam footages can be collected by the accuser, from their own efforts or private investigations, and then be presented to the Police to reconsider.

One can argue that technologies such as this has made it easier for us to do this ourselves, instead of relying on the 'burdened' Policemen. But, something about what used to be the common man's right to have the Police do a preliminary investigation for them, now being taken away, in a devious way at that, doesn't sit right with me. And that is the system at its best; the Police can very well not take a fair FIR complaint and realistically get away with offering just a CSR, as the accuser would be MUCH less likely to take on two cases now.

[SS-Traveller]

A minor crash, but not uncommon nowadays with unruly 2-wheeler riders everywhere.

https://youtu.be/Y5NiCj02T3s?si=lL9GCgaDRsVhwNAw

[CEF_Beasts]

Originally Posted by saikishor

The car has a temporary registration, but I am 100% sure it is not a new car. When I opened the door, I saw a 95xx or 95xxx odo reading.

Glad you’re safe!

This reminded me, where I’m in Rural AP, I see hell lot of cars (not new ones) with these yellow AP/TS Temp registration stickers at the front and back, driving without their actual Number Plates.

No one stops them nor are the owners of such cars scared of anything.

[Guna]

Originally Posted by ricky_speed

In fact I think there’s a video where they did tilt a truck on the car roof to show the pillar strength, but I’m just not able to find that particular one.

Originally Posted by TheHondaLover

Aren't cars made to bear the strength of such impact and keep the occupants safe?

Pillars/superstructure is designed to withstand it's own weight in case of toppling/roll over. No car can survive this kind of impact.

Originally Posted by TheHondaLover

I'm drawing from a video which emerged last year where landslides induced multiple rocks falling down. One such rock hit one Tata Harrier and interestingly, everyone survived!

Would it be safe to assume that brunt of a container truck is similar to a rock falling from the mountain? A crushed car makes sense, but all six of the occupants unfortunately dead in a luxury sedan from world's de facto safest car maker.

Could they have survived the impact if they were in a suv like The X90? Are SUVs safer than sedan?

No this is much more impactful than rocks falling (of course small/medium size rocks). In case of falling rocks, they tend to get deflected after hitting the surface of the car where some of the dynamic energy is diverted. In this case it is a combination of sheer weight and the dynamic force and no room for deflecting the energy.
BTW It is indeed XC90.

This is pure fate/bad luck. Guy buys a new SUV (regarded as one of the safest), goes on vacation, drives on a divided road but a heavy vehicle coming from the other side of the divider falls right on his SUV.

Apparently the container lost control after the driver tried to avoid a car which came in front of him all of a sudden. Hope this car guy is held accountable.

People from Sirsi (KA) may be familiar with another tragedy which happened many years ago. A famous doctor from Sirsi came to Bangalore to buy a Honda city. While they were returning in the new car, a tipper truck fell on the car and all occupants died on the spot.

[PreludeSH]

Vehicles jumping over median is one unfortunate case. Would having stability control on trucks mitigate the rolling over issue? It's time all heavy vehicles are made safer.

[RM Motorsports]

Considered to be one of the safest car company, another close up pic of the unfortunate Volvo XC90.

Do cars with normal roof be little more sturdy then the panoramic glass roofs?

[DrVjy]

Originally Posted by Guna

This is pure fate/bad luck. Guy buys a new SUV (regarded as one of the safest), goes on vacation, drives on a divided road but a heavy vehicle coming from the other side of the divider falls right on his SUV.

Apparently the container lost control after the driver tried to avoid a car which came in front of him all of a sudden. Hope this car guy is held accountable.

Just saw the CCTV clip from fuel station across the accident site. Even though that camera view is at quite a distance, it's clear that things couldn't have been worse than this for the unfortunate family. Some rogue black car seems to have rashly switched his lane just ahead of the truck, triggering the truck driver to swerve rashly outside the dynamic stability margins of his fully loaded vehicle, causing it to roll over just to land on a new high end Volvo XC90 (guess it must have cost 1 cr+), all as how only fate wanted.

Let alone a high end Volvo car, at the speed he was doing, the truck's kinetic energy components would've been high enough to even cause a train to derail.

Shows that how much one rogue driver can trigger a chain of horrifying wrongs.

Pray that the ailing father who the family was traveling to see, gets strength to bear this terrible tragedy.🙏

[som9729]

Originally Posted by ashkamath

Let me explain, as a Marine Hull Surveyor,

Marine hull claim amounts would also be much larger than passenger auto claims. So I'm curious, to what extent is marine hull insurance process similar to passenger auto?

[ashkamath]

Originally Posted by som9729

Marine hull claim amounts would also be much larger than passenger auto claims. So I'm curious, to what extent is marine hull insurance process similar to passenger auto?

A Hull & machinery Insurance policy is different from that of an automobile insurance claim. The policy conditions, clauses and perils covered are different.

In Marine Hull insurance, there's no depreciation as applied in auto claims. I believe in Auto insurance, some parts get depreciated value (rubber, glass etc). Marine Hull insurance follow the "New for Old" principle wherein an old part is replaced with a new part.

Instead of depreciation, a standard deductible is applied on the total assessed amount. So, let's say a fishing boat engine that's been in operation for 10 years has a broken block. A new engine of similar spec is allowed in the claim ( subject to the standard percentage of machinery claim deduction) which is a small percentage. Again the price of the engine might have increased from say Rs 10 L to present Rs 20 L. Even then the new engine is allowed in the claim. (We are talking of 400-500 HP diesel engines in boat here)

The type of policy varies too. In Motor insurance, you have the third party insurance and the comphrensive insurance while in Marine Hull there's a basic cover ( that covers Total loss of vessel only) and a wider cover (that covers partial damage to the vessel)

Another important differentiator is in Motor insurance, IDV is considered at the time of claim. ( I am not a motor surveyor, so please correct me wherever I am incorrect).

A Marine Hull policy is a "Fixed value policy or agreed value policy" meaning irrespective of the present market value / resale value, the claim is settled on the agreed value and not the present market value.

So, essentially in a claim, if the liability is accepted by the insurer, then the company will pay a predetermined, fixed amount for a claim regardless of the actual market value of the vessel at the time of the loss, essentially locking in the sum insured at the policy's start.

In Marine Hull policy, negligence is covered while wilful negligence is not covered. Barratry is also covered. Barratry is a fraudulent or criminal act by the crew or captain of a ship that injures the interests of the ship's or cargo's owners and it's covered in the policy.

A driver's license is necessary for Motor insurance while it's not necessary in marine Hull insurance in small vessels such as fishing vessels, yachts etc (again upto certain vessel dimensions, tonnage, beyond which a certificate of competency is necessary for the master to be able to command the vessel)

I believe in Motor insurance if the repair cost is about 70% or 75% of sum insured then the vehicle could be considered as a total loss while in Marine Hull, the repair cost should exceed the full (100%) sum insured for it to be considered as a "constructive total loss".

I have just shared a few general differences between the motor insurance and marine Hull insurance policies and there are much more nuances and finer / subtle aspects that I haven't touched into..

For a motor insurance, the presence of the vehicle (say, the wreck) is must for claim settlement. In marine Hull, more often than not, the vessel is lost at high seas and there's no physical evidence of the loss available to us and thus the claim process, procedures are different from that of a motor vehicle survey/ policy.

A disclaimer here. I am not a motor surveyor and my knowledge about motor insurance is very rudimentary and perhaps only as much as an average Indian car owner who has an motor insurance policy. I have never conducted a motor vehicle claim survey as I am not categorised nor have the knowledge, competency nor a licence to do it. I have been a Marine Hull Surveyor all my working life since 1989 and my focus is limited to the watercrafts and as I mentioned earlier, the marine Hull insurance is very different from motor insurance in many ways.

[DetectiveMiles]

Regarding the Volvo accident near Nelamangala, from video posted by news portal Kannada Prabha, it looks like truck driver somehow entered wrong way and didn't stop leading to head on collision and toppling.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DD18rGhKMbw/

[400notout]

Originally Posted by RM Motorsports

Considered to be one of the safest car company, another close up pic of the unfortunate Volvo XC90.

Do cars with normal roof be little more sturdy then the panoramic glass roofs?

https://x.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status...NGfpFm5Fw&s=19

Found this on twitter/X. Seems like the sunroof isn't such a problem after all. Screenshot below.

[binand]

Originally Posted by RM Motorsports

Do cars with normal roof be little more sturdy then the panoramic glass roofs?

Basic Engineering Mechanics say that the presence of sunroof does not matter, what matters are the design constraints imposed on the A, B, C pillars.

I don't think anybody would have designed the pillars for something like 5 tonnes load on each of them (assuming a fully loaded container to weigh 30 tonnes - to put that in perspective, the XC90's curb weight seems to be about 2 tonnes).