Fw: Contract Surveying Agreement between Auto Risk & Insurance Companies.....

[C K Bhatia]

--- On Sun, 13/12/09, Radhe Shyam Garg <gargsu...@gmail.com> wrote: From: Radhe Shyam Garg <gargsu...@gmail.com> Subject: Contract Surveying Agreement between Auto Risk & Insurance Companies..... To: iiisl...@googlegroups.com Date: Sunday, 13 December, 2009, 2:59 PM   Dear All   I am alleged that in Panipat I demanded the State Minister for abolition of 64 UM. What a false propaganda. The memorandum was prepared and submitted by Mr. C K Jain and Minister's speech was before 600 plus surveyors. There was no such demand and instead our demand was to remove the limit of Rs. 20000.00 from section 64 UM and all surveys to be conducted by surveyors.   On the contrary it was Mr. M J Dhruva and Mr. Arun Kumar made this recommendation of abolition of 64 UM in memorandum submitted on behalf of IISA to Law Commission and this appears on page 88 of the Law Commission’s 190th report submitted to Government in June 2004. Copy of this page is enclosed and members can access it on Law Commission’s site http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports.htmbn   It is thus evident that this leadership had been working against the interest of Fraternity and obeying the agenda of IRDA and insurance company to finish the surveyors so that they can get the Contracts.   Mr Dhruva’s and Mr Arun Kumar’s alliance with Auto Risk is well known and see website http://armis.in/contactus.htm and this address is that of Mr Dhruva only. See the attached letters written by various insurance companies to Auto Risk and how they have taken away the surveyor’s work. Let Mr. Dhruva & Arun Kumar think is he with surveyor’s friends or fraternity’s enemies?

--
(Radhe Shyam GARG)
434, New Colony, Adarsh Nagar,
Kurukshetra -136118

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Insurance Surveyors India" group.
To post to this group, send email to insurance-su...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to insurance-surveyor...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/insurance-surveyors-india?hl=en.

---

The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage.

[shailesh shah from vadodara]

these documents are pretty old, some of them dtd. 2003. secondly these
are not contract survey agreements but are pre inspection business. It
is a smart business man venture and can not be challenged except the
fact that an office bearer of this stature should remain away from
such selfish acts that deprive the other members of their lawful right
to equal opportunity. The scandals are exposed.


Are they still valid and in use by the insurance companies. What about
the contract between cunningham and insurers - does someone have a
copy of their contract too? There must be some similar contracts in
use between other companies of surveyors and insurance companies.

On Dec 14, 8:02 am, C K Bhatia <ckbhatia_surve...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Sun, 13/12/09, Radhe Shyam Garg <gargsurve...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> From: Radhe Shyam Garg <gargsurve...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Contract Surveying Agreement between Auto Risk & Insurance Companies.....
> To: iiisl...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Sunday, 13 December, 2009, 2:59 PM
>
>  
> Dear All
>  
> I am alleged that in Panipat I demanded the State Minister for abolition of 64 UM. What a false propaganda. The memorandum was prepared and submitted by Mr. C K Jain and Minister's speech was before 600 plus surveyors. There was no such demand and instead our demand was to remove the limit of Rs. 20000.00 from section 64 UM and all surveys to be conducted by surveyors.
>  

> On the contrary it was Mr. M J Dhruva and Mr. Arun Kumar made this recommendation of abolition of 64 UM in memorandum submitted on behalf of IISA to Law Commission and this appears on page 88 of the Law Commission’s 190th report submitted to Government in June 2004. Copy of this page is enclosed and members can access it on Law Commission’s sitehttp://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports.htmbn

>  
> It is thus evident that this leadership had been working against the interest of Fraternity and obeying the agenda of IRDA and insurance company to finish the surveyors so that they can get the Contracts.
>  

> Mr Dhruva’s and Mr Arun Kumar’s alliance with Auto Risk is well known and see websitehttp://armis.in/contactus.htmand this address is that of Mr Dhruva only. See the attached letters written by various insurance companies to Auto Risk and how they have taken away the surveyor’s work. Let Mr. Dhruva & Arun Kumar think is he with surveyor’s friends or fraternity’s enemies?

>  
>  
>
> --
> (Radhe Shyam GARG)
> 434, New Colony, Adarsh Nagar,
> Kurukshetra -136118
>

> --You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Insurance Surveyors India" group.

> To post to this group, send email to insurance-su...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to insurance-surveyor...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/insurance-surveyors-india?hl=en.
>

>       The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage.http://in.yahoo.com/
>
>  agreement1.JPG
> 298KViewDownload
>
>  agreement2.JPG
> 316KViewDownload
>
>  agreement3.JPG
> 207KViewDownload
>
>  autorisk1.JPG
> 121KViewDownload
>
>  autorisk2.JPG
> 245KViewDownload
>
>  Copy
> 229KViewDownload
>
>  Copy
> 255KViewDownload
>
>  9EF510BE.bmp
> 88KViewDownload

[chand Bhatia]

Dear Mr Shailesh

You are right, but these still prevail as per letters. Secondly if you
look back at the history the preinspection of the vehicle was earlier
done by the development officers who used to certify the inspection on
the cover note itself. Then it started that local surveyors were asked
to do this job and many a times they were pressurised for obliging the
insured and not to charge the fees.

Now the same is contracted to these companies. Interesting part is
that these companies are also subletting the work to local surveyors
only, but are charging a percentage of the same. It shows that our
leaders (taking advantage of it) are taking surveyor's work in the
name of the preinspection and then subletting them.

Now when the 64 UM shall be abolished and IRDA shall be empowered,
what do you think these companies shall not enter into the survey
job.

You are an RTI Activisit. Should you not ask these public sector
companies as to how did they enter into a contract at specified fees
without calling a tender, and how could they fix the fees to be
charged from consumer. Once you get the cases reported by this
company, you will find that a large number are cash paid fees and no
service tax paid for these services. It may result into a crores worth
revenue concealment. a befitting case to be reported to CVC and
Ministry of financne for tax concealment.

C K BHATIA

On Dec 14, 6:31 pm, shailesh shah from vadodara

<shaileshbs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> these documents are pretty old, some of them dtd. 2003. secondly these
> are not contract survey agreements but are pre inspection business. It
> is a smart business man venture and can not be challenged except the
> fact that an office bearer of this stature should remain away from
> such selfish acts that deprive the other members of their lawful right
> to equal opportunity. The scandals are exposed.
>
> Are they still valid and in use by the insurance companies. What about
> the contract between cunningham and insurers - does someone have a
> copy of their contract too? There must be some similar contracts in
> use between other companies of surveyors and insurance companies.
>
> On Dec 14, 8:02 am, C K Bhatia <ckbhatia_surve...@yahoo.com> wrote:> --- On Sun, 13/12/09, Radhe Shyam Garg <gargsurve...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Radhe Shyam Garg <gargsurve...@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Contract Surveying Agreement between Auto Risk & Insurance Companies.....
> > To: iiisl...@googlegroups.com
> > Date: Sunday, 13 December, 2009, 2:59 PM
>
> >  
> > Dear All
> >  
> > I am alleged that in Panipat I demanded the State Minister for abolition of 64 UM. What a false propaganda. The memorandum was prepared and submitted by Mr. C K Jain and Minister's speech was before 600 plus surveyors. There was no such demand and instead our demand was to remove the limit of Rs. 20000.00 from section 64 UM and all surveys to be conducted by surveyors.
> >  
> > On the contrary it was Mr. M J Dhruva and Mr. Arun Kumar made this recommendation of abolition of 64 UM in memorandum submitted on behalf of IISA to Law Commission and this appears on page 88 of the Law Commission’s 190th report submitted to Government in June 2004. Copy of this page is enclosed and members can access it on Law Commission’s sitehttp://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports.htmbn
> >  
> > It is thus evident that this leadership had been working against the interest of Fraternity and obeying the agenda of IRDA and insurance company to finish the surveyors so that they can get the Contracts.
> >  

> > Mr Dhruva’s and Mr Arun Kumar’s alliance with Auto Risk is well known and see websitehttp://armis.in/contactus.htmandthis address is that of Mr Dhruva only. See the attached letters written by various insurance companies to Auto Risk and how they have taken away the surveyor’s work. Let Mr. Dhruva & Arun Kumar think is he with surveyor’s friends or fraternity’s enemies?

[Sanjay Shaw]

SIR,

I LIKE THIS TERM OPEN TENDER THAT WE ARE FAR BEHIND OF IT IN INDIA FOR LOSS ADJUSTMENT IN TRANSPARENCY WITH ROTATIONAL BASIS ON THE MERIT OF THE TAT COMMITTED SUPPORTING TOOLS .

UNDOUBTEDLY, Insurer are the custodian of insurance public money AND They have every rights to conduct risk inspection by their own staff or outsourced staff but when ultimately when a claim will be scrutinised by surveyor/ombudsman/lawyer/consumer body/by court of law, whose risk inspection were conducted by such insurer's own staff or outsourced staff , can we considered such risk inspection report as legal instrument of the part of the claim. We confident to say NO   NO NO even the same report might have counter signature of the insured / insured representatives / driver / e t c

As it does not mean that an insured on break in insurance ought to be qualified engineer to enable to understand the enunciated nomenclature of the risk inspection report.

 

As we know, it is our regular problem that conventional insurance claim manager are regularly pursuing us to negotiate the claim assessment with the insured irrespective of the acceptance of the legalised / authorised service centre of the manufacturer of the insurable interest.

 

Than being a loss assessor, How we will through our language of loss assessment to the innocent customer who is not supposed to understand such unwanted terminology of the loos adjustment other than the currency mode i.e. total assessed amount + expenses borned by the insured on account of the depreciation + Salvages + Excess + other non consistence damages/repairing/maintenance.

 

YES,  I LIKE THIS TERM OPEN TENDER

1) LOSS ADJUSTER

2) LOSS ASSESSOR.

 

AND

 

ALL CATEGORISED OUGHT TO BE INDUCED IN SIDE OF THE IIISLA UN FORCEFULLY AND ALL SORT INSURANCE INSPECTION OUGHT TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE IIISLA MEMBER ONLY WHO MAY BE A IN-HOUSE SURVEYOR / CORPORATE SURVEYOR / INDIVIDUAL SURVEYOR THAT NO IIISLA MEMBER CAN NOT DENY TO RENDER SERVICES FOR 24 x 7 HOURS WITH THE RATE OF HOURLY RATE OF LOSS ADJUSTMENT FEES + INCURRED EXPENSES OF LOSS ADJUSTMENT.

 

MORE OPINION AWAITED.

 

WITH REGARDS

SANJAY SHAW

98310 85519

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Insurance surveyors" group.
To post to this group, send email to insurance...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to insurance_surve...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/insurance_surveyors?hl=en.