Replacement of Chassis Frame or Monocoque Body Shell in accident vehicles - A discussion

[S. Anoop Kumar]

Reply message as received from Mr. K. Gopinath, a retired Motor Vehicle Inspector, who was an insurance surveyor about 25 years back and is once again an insurance surveyor now. 

 

S. Anoop Kumar.

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: GOPI NATH <nathg...@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 18, 9:28 am
Subject: chassis frame/body shell
To: Insurance Surveyors India



Dear Anoop, 

 

 

Good Morning.

 

Sec. 52 of MV Act is specific on altrations permissible.   CMV Rule 122 says embossment of chassis/engine no is for manufacturer with concurence from testing agencies as per COC issued under CMVrule126.  Regarding punching by dealer/or any body is clearly contrary to above.  However if manufacturer supplies chassis/body with VIN/Ch no., it may be put for consideration.   Recently one Innova veh. got chassis frame replaced under ins. claim, and manufacturer supplied with ch.no. and insured approched hon'ble court and relief is yet to come. 

 

From 1/04/2009 the Ch. no. has to be as per AIS 065.  I am attaching both AIS code and CMV Rule 122 for information.   As per legislation , high powered committee headed by Shri Sunder recommended chassis replmnt. u/s 52 for alterations.  But bill passed in Rajya Sabha not included it.   Earlier Maharastra govt. permitted RTOs to issue new no. for chassis in such cases. But in AP no such procedure is adopted. 

 

 

However due to large scale thefts in cars, is it advisible to emboss no, by any other than manufacturer.

 

Thanks and regards.

Gopinath Kavuri

----- Original Message -----

From: S. Anoop Kumar

To: Insurance Surveyors India

Cc: Insurance Adjusters ; Gopinath K

Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 9:20 PM

Subject: Replacement of Chassis Frame or Monocoque Body Shell in accident vehicles - A discussion

Dear Mr. Gopinath,

 

Thanks for sharing the info.   We would like to have more clarity on the issue.    And you, having served the AP Transport Department as Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector and later as  Motor Vehicle Inspector for over 25 years, are certainly in a better position to enlighten us on the subject.  

 

 

The Section 52 of MV Act is reading as - "(1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer.

 

 

Next, it is also explained in the same section - "For the purposes of this section, "alteration" means a change in the structure of a vehicle which results in a change in its basic feature."

 

 

Now going by the above, does replacement of chassis frame (two-tier body on frame design) or a monocoque (unitary body design) body shell in the event of accidental or collusion damage constitute "alteration of vehicle"?

 

 

Pls. note that the chassis frame or the body shell are manufactured and supplied as spares by the vehicle manufacturer and these are the same frames or body shells fitted on the same model vehicle and with same specifications.    There is no change in design.  And by replacing the part, the vehicle is brought back to its original pre-accident condition and does not in any way change or alter its basic features.   In simple, it is just replacement of an old or damaged part with new.  

 

 

Now coming to the identity plates, the original identity plate can be removed from the damaged body shell and can be fixed on the new body shell.   On chassis frames, the dealer can punch the same sl. no. as was punched on the original chassis frame.   This is what has been happening so far and will continue to happen in the future also unless govt. specifically prohibits such replacements.   

 

 

And there is another important angle to this.   The cost factor & economy angle.   Just because a chassis frame or body shell in a vehicle is damaged in an accident and warrants replacement, a vehicle cannot be condemned and the insurance claim settled on Total Loss Basis.    The amount of claim out go would be very huge and would result in high amount of national waste which our country cannot afford at this point of time.   The end results would be very high cost of insurance cover on the consumers.  And ofcourse it also leads to reduced vehicle selling and rise in cost of vehicles due to low production scales.     

 

 

Pls share your views.   This discussion is keenly followed by insurance officials also on Insurance-Adjusters Group.  

 

 

With best regards,

 

S. Anoop Kumar,

Secunderabad,

09849042132.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: GOPI NATH

To: insurance-su...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 7:12 PM

Subject: Re: Replacement of Chassis Frame or Monocoque Body Shell in accident vehicles - A discussion

dear freinds,

 

pl.find attachments for your perusal

 

thanks and regards,

gopinath.k

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:58 AM, GOPI NATH <nath...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:29 AM, GOPI NATH <nath...@gmail.com> wrote:

dear freinds,

pl. find herewith rule122 for information.

birthmark (ch.no/vin no) is from manufacturers, if chassis frame/ monococque body supplied with no. authorities may oblige.though sunder commitee recomanded amendments for consideration of replacement of chassis frame under alterations in sec 52 of mv act ,the bill passed in rajyasaba ignored it.in absence of original birthmark any other mark is altration contrary to RC.
thanks and regards,

gopinath.k

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Biman Banerjee <surveyo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Please read " if the  chassis frame becomes beyond economical repair."

 

From: Lakshman Iyer <lakshma...@yahoo.com>
To: insurance...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Insurance Surveyors India <insurance-su...@googlegroups.com>; Insurance Adjusters <Insurance...@googlegroups.com>; S. Anoop Kumar <s.anoo...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: Replacement of Chassis Frame or Monocoque Body Shell in accident vehicles - A discussion

Dear Brothers,

The point is very simple.

Replacement with OE repairs without altering the Identity of vehicle  is no problem for anyone.

Alterations / retrofits with non OE spares and parts  resulting in alterations of OE specs of Original equipment amounts to change and alterations.

As simple as that.
What RTA or RTO officers do is their outlook by punching nos is their own lawlessness.

Regards
Lakshman Iyer
Aurangabad


On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 11:30:43 PM UTC+5:30, S. Anoop Kumar wrote:

Dear Friends,

 

 

2 weeks back I have raised an issue on cancellation of RC pertaining to Total Loss or Constructive Total Loss vehicles.   While several surveyors have shared their opinion and views, the participation from members is far too less than expected & even discouraging too.   More members should actively participate in the group discussions and share their views and help others learn in the process, in addition to self learning.  

 

 

This time I am sharing yet another provision of the MV Act which prohibits any alteration to the vehicle.   Here, the word alteration means, in the sense of  State Transport Department (RTA) or Motor Vehicle Department (MVD) authorities, as called in different states, any structural alteration including replacement of chassis frame or monocoque body shell.   

 

Motor Vehicles Act 1988

¹[52. Alteration in motor vehicle.

(1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer:

 

Provided that where the owner of a motor vehicle makes modification of the engine, or any part thereof, of a vehicle for facilitating its operation by different type of fuel or source of energy including battery, compressed natural gas, solar power, liquid petroleum gas or any other fuel or source of energy, by fitment of a conversion kit, such modification shall be carried out subject to such conditions as may be prescribed:

 

Provided further that the Central Government may prescribe specifications, conditions for approval, retrofitment and other related matters for such conversion kits:

 

Provided also that the Central Government may grant exemption for alteration of vehicles in a manner other than specified above, for any specific purpose.

 

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, and permit any person owning not less than ten transport vehicles to alter any vehicle owned by him so as to replace the engine thereof with engine of the same make and type, without the approval of registering authority.

 

(3) Where any alteration has been made in motor vehicle without the approval of registering authority or by reason of replacement of its engine without such approval under sub-section (2), the owner of the vehicle shall,, within fourteen days of the making of the alteration, report the alteration to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resides and shall forward the certificate of registration to that authority together with the prescribed fee in order that particulars of registration may be entered therein.

 

(4) A registering authority other than the original registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the details of the entry to the original registering authority.

 

(5) Subject to the provisions made under sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and (4), no person holding a vehicle under a hire-purchase agreement shall make any alteration to the vehicle except with the written consent of the registered owner.

 

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "alteration" means a change in the structure of a vehicle which results in a change in its basic feature.].

Some of the state transport authorities have not been permitting even replacement of chassis assy. or the body shell in the event of monocoque type bodies.  In AP replacing the chassis frame in repunching of sl. no. may lead to even confiscation or seizure of vehicle by the authorities if the vehicle goes to RTA officials for any sort of inspection, or even renewal if FC which is to be carried out every year.   Some of the vehicle owners have contested the decision in the court of law and got their vehicles released but they are still fighting their cases in the courts for over 5 years now.   They cannot sell their vehicles or transfer their vehicles pending the court cases.  

 

 

Following points may please be remembered here:

 

1. Chassis frame or monocoque body shell is damaged in an accident and warrants replacement.
2. Chassis frame or monocoque body shell is available and supplied as spare part by the manufacturer thro their authorised dealer network.
3. There is no change in the design or alteration carried out in the replacement of chassis frame or the monocoque body shell
4. And finally remember and note with interest or concern, that the replacement of the chassis frame or body shell is happening with the recommendation and approval of insurance surveyor who is facilitating the replacement of part and also finally certifying such replacement.  Is the surveyor doing wrong?

 

I invite the surveyor members to share their views & debate on this all important issue.  

 

 

Regards,

S. Anoop Kumar. 

--