District: South- 24 Parganas

In the Court of Learned M. A. C. Tribunal,

Before the Ld. Fast Track Court at Baruipur

M. A.C. C. No. 12 of 2023

Ruby Halder & Ors.

….. Applicant/ Petitioner

-Versus-

1. Nurnabi Mondal

2. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.

……..Opposite Parties.

Written Statement filed by the Opposite Party No. 2,

Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.

1. The instant claim case, filed by the Applicant/ Petitioner is not maintainable
either in law or in its present form.

2. The instant claim case filed by the Applicant/ Petitioner (hereinafter referred
to as the “said claim case” for the sake of brevity) is speculative, malicious,
frivolous, fictitious, motivated and as such liable to be dismissed in limini with
cost.

3. That the Petitioner has got no cause of action against the Opposite Party No.-
2.

4. That the claim is bad by the principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence.

5. That the Opposite Party No.- 2 has no liability to pay the said compensation
whatsoever.

6. That the claim is bad for mis-joinder of unnecessary parties and non-joinder of
proper and necessary parties.

7. That the allegations made in the claim application are not all true and
Applicant/ Petitioner are put to the strictest legal proof thereof to substantiate
those allegations.

8. Before dealing with the paragraph wise averments of the petition of the said
claim case as has been provided by the Applicant/ Petitioner (hereinafter
referred to as the “said claim petition”) the Opposite Party No.- 2 hereby denies

Contd…
 2

and disputes all the statements/ allegations made / raised therein, save and
except what are matter of records and/ or what are admitted facts and/or
what are specifically admitted by it hereinbefore, hereinafter or elsewhere.

9. That the allegations made in Col. Nos. 1 to 7 of the claim application with
regard to the age, income and occupation of the deceased are not at all correct,
hence are categorically denied by the Opposite Party No.- 2. Those details
being within the special knowledge of the Petitioner/Applicant, she is liable to
establish those facts through strictest proof by placing clear and cogent
documents and evidences to that effect. The Applicant are legally bound to
prove the fact that at the material time of accident the deceased was aged
about 30 years and he had an income of Rs.40,669/- per month from his
business under name and style of Kenoka Sales & Service.

10. That the Opposite Party No.- 2 categorically denies all about the accident
alleged to have taken place on 13.11.2022 at about 11-10 p.m. on Baruipur-
Gobindapur Bypass Road, near Gobindapur More under the jurisdiction of
Baruipur Police Station, as stated in Col. No.8 of the claim application and all
statements regarding nature of injuries allegedly sustained by the victim, as
stated in the Col. Nos.11, 14 and elsewhere in the claim application. The
Applicant/ Petitioner are bound to prove not only the accident and injuries as
alleged, but also he needs to prove the allegation that it has been caused by
the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. WB-41J- 9109 (Lorry) for his
rash and negligent driving. the Opposite Party No.- 2 vehemently denies the
involvement of the vehicle insured by the Opposite Party No.- 2 in the alleged
accident as no intimation regarding the accident has been received by the
insurer from the insured or the driver of the concerned vehicle regarding the
alleged accident as required under Sec 134 (C) of the M. V. Act 1988 and from
the concerned Officer in Charge of the Baruipur Police Station within whose
jurisdiction the alleged accident took place as required under Sec.158 (6) of
the Act of 1988.

11. That the allegations made in the Col. Nos.- 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the
claim application are not admitted by the Opposite Party No.- 2. All such
allegations are baseless, misleading and are not specific.

12. That with regard to the paragraph No.17 of the claim application, this
Opposite Party No.- 2 states that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify
the insured subject to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.

Contd…
 3

13. That the Opposite Party No.- 2 further states that it is for the owner of the
impleaded vehicle bearing No. WB-41J- 9109 (Lorry) to prove that at the
material time of the alleged accident the said vehicle was being driven by a
qualified person holding a valid and effective Driving License and he is
required to produce the Driving License of the concerned driver, failing which
adverse inference need to be taken against the Insured and the Insurer ought
to be absolved from the liability of indemnifying the insured in the event of any
award passed by the Ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal against him.

14. That the Opposite Party No.- 2 categorically denies the statements made in
Col. Nos.19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the claim application and submit that the
Applicant are liable to substantiate each of the allegations with strictest legal
proof in respect thereof. The Applicant/ Petitioner are also liable to proof that
the registered owner used the vehicle without any breach of Traffic Rules at
the material time of alleged accident.

15. That the amount of compensation claimed is excessive, abnormal and without
any legal basis. The Opposite Party No.- 2 is not liable to pay the same or any
portion thereof.

16. That without prejudice to the contentions raised therein above, the Opposite
Party No.- 2 submits that while assessing damages, uncertainty of life is one of
the principle factors for consideration besides other factors viz.:-
a) Amount of pecuniary assistance from the deceased to the family; i.e. the
actual pecuniary loss.
b) Reasonable deductions for lump sum payment and
c) All pecuniary benefits and amount of lump sum money received by way
of compensation from other sources.

17. That without prejudice and without admitting any liability whatsoever the
Opposite Party No.- 2 states that the liability of the Opposite Party No.- 2 if at
all is limited to the extent as provided Under Section 147(2) of the Motor
Vehicles Act. 1988.

18. That the Opposite Party No.- 2 reserves its right to take all defenses available
to the insured/owner of the impleaded vehicle, if necessary, as provided Under
Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988.

Contd…
 4

19. That what are not specifically admitted in this written statement by the
Opposite Party No.- 2 are deemed to have been denied. The Applicant/
Petitioner are put to the strictest legal proof thereof to substantiate each and
every allegation contained in the claim application.

20. The Opposite Party No.- 2 craves leave to file additional or amended written
statement, if necessary.
21. That the Opposite Party No.- 2 has no liability whatsoever.

22. That the Opposite Party No.- 2 states that this Ld. Court has no jurisdiction to
adjudicate the case as it has been filed beyond the jurisdiction.
23. That the victim herself is guilty and/or responsible for the alleged accident
and as such the Applicant/ Petitioner cannot take any advantage of the wrong
committed by herself and as such the present claim is bad in law and is liable
to be rejected.

24. That the Applicant/ Petitioner are not entitled to claim any interest on non-
pecuniary damages as per the observations of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex
Court.
25. That the amount of court fees on the claim amount as required under the
West Bengal Motor Vehicle Rules 1989, is not paid and as such the claim
application is liable to be rejected.
It is therefore prayed that your Honour
would graciously be pleased to admit the
written statement and to dismiss the claim of
the Applicant/ Petitioner with compensatory
costs in favour of the Opposite Party No.- 2.

VERIFICATION

I, , duly constituted Attorney of the TATA AIG

General Insurance Company Limited, do hereby declare that the statements made

Contd…
 5

in the foregoing paragraphs are true to the best of my knowledge, information and
belief and I sign this verification on this day of
20 at my office premises at Kolkata.

Drafted by,

Kamal Hassan Mollah

Advocate

Contd…