Every finance team managing field reps knows this problem. Claims come in with vague distances, no proof, and amounts that don’t match. You pay out anyway because chasing each one takes longer than approving it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That ends up costing a lot more than it should.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This post gives you the exact formula used to calculate conveyance claims, a simple template to standardise submissions, and what to check before approving anything.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A conveyance claim is a reimbursement request a field employee submits for travel expenses incurred during work. This usually covers fuel costs when they use their own vehicle to visit clients, sites, or branches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is different from travel allowances, which are fixed monthly payouts regardless of distance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Standard Conveyance Claim Formula<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The most widely used formula for per-kilometre reimbursement is:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nClaim Amount = Distance Travelled (km) x Rate Per Km<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Simple on paper. Messy in practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The problems come from two places: unverified distances and inconsistent rates. If your team is self-reporting distances without any validation, you are likely overpaying.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Breaking Down the Variables<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Distance Travelled
This should be the actual distance between check-in and check-out locations for each visit, not a rough estimate. The most accurate source is GPS-verified travel data.<\/p>\n\n\n\nRate Per Km
Most companies set this based on vehicle type.<\/p>\n\n\n\n(Insert template)
A Worked Example<\/p>\n\n\n\nSay a sales rep visits three clients in a day:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- Home to Client A: 12 km<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Client A to Client B: 8 km<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Client B to office: 10 km<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Total distance: 30 km
Vehicle: Two-wheeler at Rs. 4\/km<\/p>\n\n\n\nClaim Amount = 30 x 4 = Rs. 120<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Now multiply that across 20 working days and a team of 50 reps. Without distance verification, even a 10% inflation in reported distances adds up to a significant annual loss.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(Insert template)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What Finance Teams Should Verify Before Approving<\/h2><\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
- Distance vs. actual route
Cross-check the claimed distance against the actual road distance using maps. If someone claims 40 km for a route Google Maps puts at 22 km, that is worth questioning.<\/li>\n\n\n\n- Visits that actually happened
Was the rep actually at those locations? Without attendance or check-in records, you are taking it on faith.<\/li>\n\n\n\n- Duplicate claims
The same route claimed on different dates is common when approvals are manual. A log helps catch this.<\/li>\n\n\n\n- Rate applied
Confirm the right per-km rate was used based on vehicle type. Errors here are usually honest mistakes, but they add up.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nWhy Manual Claim Processes Break Down<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Most companies still run this on spreadsheets or paper forms. The issues are predictable: missing entries, illegible submissions, no audit trail, slow approvals, and no way to flag inflated distances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Finance teams end up either rubber-stamping claims to clear the queue or getting into back-and-forth with reps over missing details.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Neither is a good use of anyone’s time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nA Cleaner Way to Handle This<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Tools like Unolo automate the distance tracking side of this process. GPS logs each visit, calculates the actual distance travelled, and feeds that data directly into the claim. There is no self-reporting. The distance is what it is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This removes the single biggest source of error and dispute in conveyance reimbursement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n