Selective and biased investigation process lacking meaningful feedback and proper engagement with complaint.

I purchased a new vehicle and insured the vehicle with Oakhurst insurance. During the "sales pitch" the consultant advised that the vehicle would be insured for market value and that this is the value that would be considered in the vent of a claim. Had a car accident and Oakhurst said the car was a write -off and offered me a settlement amount. Not happy with the settlement amount quoted by Oakhusrt, I a paid for a car value report from Transunion Auto, the same company that is responsible for the Auto dealers guide. Transunion quoted a market value of the vehicle at R100k more than what Oakhurst had quoted. I disputed this discrepancy with Oakhurst and was told that they (Oakhurst) utilize the services of a company called "Tru-Trade" to determine car values and as such they are not going to reconsider. I even went insofar as to request quotations (x 2 )of similar vehicles from reputable dealerships, needless to say Oakhurst did not take this additional info into consideration. With Oakhurst being steadfast in the company/methodology used to calculate the "market value", I went on to try and find this company "Tru Trade" in order to raise the discrepancy with them directly. This is where it all gets very interesting..... Tru-Trade is a subsidiary of Badger Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Oakhurst is also a subsidiary of Badger Holdings (Pty) Ltd, thus effectively this means it is one and the same company!!! How can such be ethical business conduct? Badger holdings, in this case, plays judge, jury and prosecutor...