IRDAI Surveyor Motor (S-06) common mistakes
IRDAI Surveyor Motor (S-06) · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating the Indian Motor Tariff as still legally in force and citing tariff clause numbers as binding when justifying a claim decision.
Most older textbooks and coaching notes were written pre-detariffication, so candidates memorise tariff wording and never learn that the tariff was withdrawn and replaced by file-and-use products regulated under the IRDAI (Insurance Products) Regulations, 2024, with policy terms driven by the filed wordings and the Motor Vehicles Act.
What to do instead
For every coverage decision, quote the source hierarchy explicitly: Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (as amended) for statutory liability, the insurer's filed policy wording and endorsements for contractual scope, and IRDAI product/customer-protection regulations for conduct. Use the tariff only as historical background, and check the current IRDAI circular before asserting any rate or clause is mandatory.
Settling a total-loss or constructive total-loss claim on IDV alone without first establishing whether the vehicle is a total loss, repairable, or a CTL, and without applying the correct pre-accident value and salvage deduction.
IDV is the easiest number to find in the policy schedule, so candidates jump to it. They skip the repair-estimate-versus-IDV comparison, the CTL threshold logic, and the salvage/‘loss on sale’ adjustment, then cannot explain why the settlement differs from the schedule figure.
What to do instead
Work a fixed sequence: assess damage, obtain a repair estimate net of depreciation on parts and labour, compare with IDV, classify the loss, then compute settlement as pre-accident value (or IDV where the policy fixes it) less salvage value and less deductibles/excess. Show each step in the report so the arithmetic is auditable.
Applying depreciation to labour, paint, and consumables, or applying a single flat depreciation percentage to every part regardless of its age and material.
Depreciation tables are memorised as one block, and candidates do not distinguish between ‘parts’ (depreciable by age) and ‘labour/charges’ (not depreciable), nor between rubber/plastic/fibre/glass and metal components. This inflates deductions and produces assessments the insurer has to revise.
What to do instead
Build the estimate in separate columns: metal parts, plastic/rubber/fibre parts, glass, paint and labour, consumables. Apply the age-based depreciation percentage only to the parts column per the policy/endorsement basis, keep labour and paint at assessed rates, and state the depreciation basis used in the report.
Failing to identify and apply the correct excess layers - compulsory deductible, voluntary excess, and any ‘additional excess’ for young/inexperienced drivers or specified drivers - and netting them against the wrong head of claim.
The policy schedule lists several figures that look similar, and candidates apply one ‘excess’ to the total bill. They also deduct excess from third-party liability or from towing charges where it does not belong, or forget that excess applies per claim, not per item.
What to do instead
Read the schedule line by line and list every deductible with its trigger. Apply the compulsory and voluntary excess once, to the own-damage claim, before or after depreciation exactly as the wording states; keep third-party property damage and personal injury settlements separate. Reconcile the final figure against each deductible in a small table.
Concluding a claim is fraudulent or ‘not payable’ without documenting the evidence chain - no photographs with timestamps, no mechanical inspection notes, no statement record - and without giving the insured an opportunity to respond.
Candidates want to reach a conclusion quickly and treat the survey report as an opinion piece. They assert ‘damage inconsistent with accident’ without recording the specific measurements, part numbers, corrosion patterns, or witness statements that support it, which makes the finding indefensible.
What to do instead
For every adverse finding, write the observation, the method used, and the contradictory evidence side by side (e.g. ‘bumper crack propagates from a pre-existing repair; paint thickness 380 µm versus 110 µm on adjacent panels’). Record the insured's/driver's statement and any rebuttal, and route suspected fraud through the insurer's fraud-monitoring process rather than deciding it in the report.
Mixing up the statutory third-party liability framework: confusing sections of the Motor Vehicles Act, the limits for death/injury versus property damage, and the role of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal versus the insurer's own settlement.
The Act, the policy wording, and the Claims Tribunal procedure use overlapping terminology, and candidates memorise section numbers without mapping them to what the surveyor actually assesses - liability, negligence, and quantum inputs for the insurer's defence or settlement.
What to do instead
Draw a one-page map: statutory compulsory cover (third-party bodily injury/death and property damage), the insurer's right to contest before the Tribunal, and the surveyor's role in evidence (damage assessment, cause, and quantum of property damage). Practise stating, for a given scenario, which forum decides and what the surveyor contributes.
Ignoring the ‘own damage versus third-party’ split and the subrogation/recovery angle when the accident involves another vehicle, so the report does not preserve the insurer's recovery rights.
Candidates focus on repairing the insured's car and treat the other party as irrelevant. They fail to record the other vehicle's registration number, driver details, FIR/crime number, and negligence evidence, which destroys the insurer's subrogation claim against the other insurer.
What to do instead
Add a mandatory recovery section to every motor report: other vehicle and insurer details, FIR/charge-sheet status, negligence assessment with reasoning, and copies of documents relied on. Note explicitly whether subrogation is viable and what further evidence the insurer should obtain.
Assessing the vehicle on paper only - relying on the repairer's estimate and photographs without a physical inspection of hidden damage, VIN/engine number, odometer, and pre-accident condition.
Turnaround pressure and remote-work habits lead to desk assessments. Candidates then miss concealed damage (chassis alignment, suspension, wiring), cannot verify the vehicle identity or that the damaged parts belong to the insured vehicle, and accept inflated estimates.
What to do instead
Use a standard inspection checklist: identity (VIN, engine number, registration), odometer and service history, damage map with photographs of each panel, hidden-damage verification (dismantling where warranted), and pre-accident condition. Where only a desk review is possible, state the limitation and the items requiring physical verification before settlement.
Misapplying ‘betterment’ and ‘salvage’ - charging betterment on parts that were already due for replacement, or allowing salvage to be retained by the insured without deducting its value from the settlement.
Betterment and salvage are conceptually simple but easy to reverse. Candidates apply betterment to safety items replaced under wear-and-tear logic, and they let the insured keep the wreck or replaced parts without a value adjustment, effectively paying twice.
What to do instead
State the rule before applying it: betterment applies where a new part replaces a worn part and improves the vehicle's value; salvage is deducted at its assessed realisable value if retained by the insured, or the insurer takes possession. Record the basis (market quotes, scrap rate) and show both adjustments as separate lines in the settlement sheet.
Treating the surveyor's report as a final claim decision and writing conclusions such as ‘claim may be passed for ₹X’ without separating findings of fact, coverage opinion, and quantum, or without flagging policy conditions the insurer must verify.
Candidates conflate the surveyor's advisory role with the insurer's decision-making authority, and they do not structure the report, so coverage questions (delay in intimation, driving without a valid licence, permit violation) get buried inside the quantum narrative.
What to do instead
Use a three-part report structure: (1) findings of fact with evidence, (2) coverage observations stating the policy clause and the condition to be verified (e.g. licence validity, permit, fitness certificate), and (3) quantum assessment with workings. Add a clear ‘matters for the insurer's decision’ section instead of recommending payment.