Motor Insurer Scam

I REFER to the letter by Stamina Neoh (The Star, June 28) and the response by MS Lim who, I presume, is from the insurance industry.

MS Lim did not address a significant point that Stamina made. Since the party who hit his car from the back has been found to be fully liable, it stands to reason that the cost of damage to the car (including new parts) should be borne by the insurance company of the guilty party.

MSLim says that Stamina had the option to use second-hand parts commensurate with the age of his car – “if available”. That sounds ridiculous. If the insurance company cannot find such second-hand parts (it is their problem), then it is their responsibility to supply new parts. It stands to reason that you will never be able to find second-hand parts exactly matching parts that were damaged in an accident.

It seems to me that this concept of “betterment” is something cooked up by local insurance companies to short-change customers. I have never heard this clause being applied in Australia and the United States. I also doubt if this concept is uniformly applied. My friend’s car, which was five years old and had a similar accident, was fully repaired by an authorized workshop without the imposition of “betterment charges”. He was also paid for the loss of use of his vehicle. He happens to be a lawyer. Letter by - J. ERAVELLY (Kuala Lumpur)