IN THE COURT OF SH. NARENDER SINGH, LD.

MACT, SONEPAT

Pretee etc. …Petitioners

Versus
Tajinder Singh & others …Respondents

In the matter of: –

Claim Petition

Written Statement on behalf of respondent

No. 3 i.e. The New Inda Assurance Co. Ltd.

R/Sir,
The respondent No.3 respectfully submits as under:-
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:-
1. That the present claim petition is not maintainable
against the answering respondent as the same has
been filed in contravention of the provisions of
the M.V. Act. The vehicle i.e. Truck bearing Regn.
No.HR-37E-3690 was being driven without route
permit, fitness certificate and registration
certificate etc. in violation of the provisions of
the M.V. Act and in violation of the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy, if any.
2. That the driver of Truck bearing Regn. No.HR-37E-
3690 was not holding any valid and effective
driving licence at the time of the alleged accident
and as per the terms and conditions of the policy,
if any, the answering respondent is not liable to
pay any compensation.
3. That the owner of the vehicle i.e. respondent No.2
has violated the terms and conditions of the
policy, if any, as per section 134 (c) of the M.V.
Act, it was his duty to inform the answering
 respondent about the factum of the alleged
accident, insurance particulars, name of the driver
and particulars of his driving licence,
registration certificate of the vehicle in question
immediately, but he failed to do so and till date
he has not supplied any information to the
answering respondent which was mandatory on his
part, and hence the answering respondent is not
liable to pay any amount of compensation whatsoever
to the claimants/petitioners.
4. That the claimants/petitioners have no cause of
action to file the present claim petition against
the answering respondent as the alleged accident
did not take place due to the rash and negligent
driving of the respondent no.1 with Truck bearing
Regn. No.HR-37E-3690 and a false case has got
registered against the respondent no.1 in-collusion
of the local police.
5. That the answering respondent reserve its right to
file the amended written statement as per the
provisions of the M.V. Act as and when new facts
are brought to the knowledge/notice of the
answering respondent. Further the answering
respondent relies on all the defences available to
it under the M.V. Act i.e. U/s 147, 149 and 157 of
the Act. The respondents No.1 & 2 are not
cooperating with the answering respondent and in
such situation, the answering respondent seeks the
permission of the Hon’ble Court U/s 170 of the M.V.
Act to take over all the defences which are
available to the respondents no.1 & 2. An
 application U/s 170 of the M.V. Act will be filed
by the answering respondent separately.
6. That the claimants/petitioners be directed to
inform that no other petition has been filed
arising out of the same accident either before this
Hon’ble Tribunal or before any other court within
the country. The claimants/petitioners be also
directed to give an undertaking to this effect that
such petition, if pending before this Court or any
other court, would be withdrawn and if award is
made by more than one Court, the
claimants/petitioners shall be at liberty to retain
the award first made and be directed to refund the
subsequent compensation amount.
7. That at the time of the alleged accident, the Truck
bearing Regn. No.HR-37E-3690 was being driven in
contravention of the terms & conditions and
limitations to the use of the vehicle prescribed in
the M.V. Act and in the Insurance policy. Hence on
all these grounds, the answering respondent is not
at all liable to pay any compensation whatsoever.
ON MERITS:
1to5 That the contents of para nos. 1 to 5 of the claim
petition as stated are denied for want of
knowledge. The claimants/petitioners be put to
strict proof thereof.
6. That the contents of para no. 6 of the claim
petition as stated are wrong and therefore denied.
The income of the deceased as shown is wrong,
false, excessive and imaginary one.
7. That the contents of para no. 7 of the claim
petition as stated are denied for want of
knowledge. The claimants/petitioners be put to
strict proof thereof.
8to9 That in reply to the contents of para nos. 8 and 9
of the claim petition it is submitted that so far
as FIR is concerned, it is a matter of record, but
the alleged accident did not take place due to the
rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1
with Truck bearing Regn. No.HR-37E-3690 and a false
case has got registered against the respondent no.1
in-collusion of the local police.
10. That the contents of para no.10 of the claim
petition as stated are wrong and hence denied. It
is wrong and denied that the deceased was driving
Mahindra Pickup bearing registration No.HR-69D-6426
at a moderate speed and as per traffic rule as
alleged.
11to13 That the contents of para nos. 11 to 13 of the
claim petition as stated are denied for want of
knowledge. However, it is wrong and denied that the
claimants/petitioners have spent Rs.1,00,000/- on
treatment of patient and Rs.1,00,000/- on
transportation and last rites of the deceased as
alleged.
14&15 That in reply to the contents of para nos. 14
& 15 of the claim petition, it is submitted that
the registration certificate of vehicle in question
has not been produced/supplied by the respondent
No.2 to the answering respondent and in the absence
of the same, the factum of ownership of the vehicle
 is denied. It is wrong and denied that the Truck
bearing Regn. No.HR-37E-3690 was involved in the
accident as alleged.
16. That the contents of para no.16 of the claim
petition as stated are wrong and therefore denied.
No policy particulars have been supplied to the
answering respondent by the respondent No.2, which
was mandatory on his part as per the M.V. Act and
in the absence of the policy particulars, the
factum of insurance is not proved. The respondent
No.2 was having no insurable interest in the
vehicle in question at the time of the alleged
accident and in case the respondent No.2 supplies
the policy particulars to the answering respondent,
even then the same are denied until and unless the
same are verified and confirmed by the issuing
office of the answering respondent. Moreover, if
the answering respondent finds that there is any
breach of the specified conditions laid down in the
policy, by the owner of the insured vehicle, the
answering respondent is not liable at all.
17to20 That the contents of the para nos.17 to 20 of
the claim petition as stated are denied for want of
knowledge. The claimants/petitioners be put to
strict proof of the same.
21. That the contents of para no.21 of the claim
petition as stated are wrong and therefore denied.
The amount of compensation as claimed is highly
excessive, exorbitant, exaggerated and without any
basis.
22. That the contents of para no. 22 of the claim
petition as stated are wrong and therefore denied.
It is wrong and denied that the deceased was
working as a Ambulance driver as alleged. It is
also wrong and denied that the entire family of the
deceased was dependent upon the income of the
deceased. It is further wrong and denied that the
respondent no.1 was driving his vehicle in a rash
and negligent manner as alleged. Rest of the
contents of this para are wrong and hence denied.
23. That the contents of para no.23 of the petition as
stated are wrong and hence denied. The present
petition is hopelessly time barred.
24 That the contents of para no.24 of the claim
petition as stated are wrong and therefore denied.
The respondent No.2 has not disclosed the factum of
the alleged accident to the answering respondent,
which was mandatory on his part as per the M.V.
Act, hence the alleged accident is denied in toto.
However, in case it is proved that the alleged
accident took place; the same has not been caused
by the respondent No.1 as he was driving his Truck
bearing Regn. No.HR-37E-3690 at a very normal
speed, on correct side of the road and by observing
all the traffic rules and it was the deceased who
had stopped his vehicle i.e. Mahindra Pickup
bearing registration No.HR-69D-6426 on of a sudden
in the middle of the road without giving any signal
or indicator, without caring for the intensity of
the traffic and without observing the traffic rules
and caused the accident. Thus, it was the deceased
i.e. the driver of Mahindra Pickup bearing
registration No.HR-69D-6426driving, who was the
author of the alleged accident. A false case has
been got registered against the respondent No.1 in-
collusion with the Local Police with the ulterior
motive to extract money from the answering
respondent. The present claim petition is not based
on true and correct facts and thus the answering
respondent is not at all liable to pay any
compensation to the claimants/petitioners. It is
further submitted that if the Hon'ble court comes
to the conclusion that the accident took place with
Truck bearing Regn. No.HR-37E-3690 then it is a
case of contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased i.e the driver of Mahindra Pickup bearing
registration No.HR-69D-6426.
It is submitted that the insured/owner of the
vehicle has violated the policy conditions as the
fitness certificate of the vehicle in question has
lost its life, vehicle was not roadworthy and the
alleged accident was outcome of the same, which it
has failed to do so and the vehicle in question was
also being driven without route permit at the time
of alleged accident, thus the respondent no.3 i.e.
insurance company is not liable to pay any
compensation to the claimants/petitioners.
It is submitted that without Prejudice to the
rights of the insurer and without admitting any
liability, the claimants be directed to furnish the
details of the PAN Number, which shall be required
for the deduction of TDS, if any, as per the
provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961.
It is further submitted that the amount of
compensation claimed by the claimants/petitioners
is highly exorbitant and not as per the judgments
of the Higher courts. Without prejudice to the
submissions stated above and without admitting any
liability, it is further submitted that, in the
event this Hon'ble Tribunal comes to the conclusion
that the claimants/petitioners are entitled for any
compensation along with interest, the rate of
interest payable should be as per prevailing rate
of interest on deposits and/or as per the
provisions of Interest Act, 1978.
Without prejudice to the foregoing
submissions, if this Hon'ble Tribunal comes to the
conclusion that the claimants/petitioners are
entitled for any compensation, either fully or
partly and/or interim, the insurer shall not be
saddled with payment of interest to the petitioner
for the period of delay and/or default caused by
the claimants/petitioners in the claim proceedings
and more particularly in furnishing the medical
documents or any other document/s and for which the
answering respondent is in no way responsible.
Further the period of any delay, which is not
attributable to the answering respondent and/or
which is beyond the control of the insurer/
answering respondent may be excluded from
payment/levy of interest, in the interest of
natural justice.
 The amount of compensation as claimed is
totally wrong, false, excessive, exorbitant,
exaggerated and without any basis. The
claimants/petitioners are not entitled to any
amount of compensation, costs and interest etc.
whatsoever as claimed from the answering respondent
in view of the facts fully detailed in the
foregoing paras of the written statement. The other
averments as mentioned in para under reply are also
denied being incorrect.
Last para which Prayer clause, is also wrong
and hence denied and in view of the submissions
made above, the claimants/petitioners are not
entitled to get any compensation from the answering
respondent.
It is, therefore, prayed that the claim
petition of the claimants/petitioners, which is
based on wrong and false facts may kindly be
dismissed with costs against the answering
respondent to meet the ends of justice.

Verification Respondent no.3

Verified that the contents The New India Assurance

of Para No. 1 to 7 of the Co. Ltd. through its
Preliminary objection and competent Authority
para Nos. 1 to 24 of the
reply on Merits of the
written statement are true
and correct to my knowledge Through Sh. R.P. Antil,
and are based on the Adv.
information derived from the Sonepat
official records which I
believe to be true.
Verified at Sonepat.
On _______________
 IN THE COURT OF SH. NARENDER SINGH, LD. MACT, SONEPAT

Pretee etc. …Petitioners

Versus
Tajinder Singh & others …Respondents

In the matter of: –

Claim Petition

Application U/s 170 of M.V. Act on behalf

of respondent No.3 i.e. The New Inda
Assurance Co. Ltd.

R/Sir,
The applicant/respondent No.3 respectfully submits
as under:-
1. That the above noted claim petition is pending
before this Ld. Court and is fixed for today.
2. That as per Section 134 (c) of the M.V. Act, the
respondent No. 1 is under legal obligation to
furnish the following information to the
applicant/respondent No.23immediately after the
accident:-
(i) Insurance Policy, number and the period of its
validity;
(ii) Date, time and place of accident;
(iii) Particulars of the persons injured or killed
in the accident;
(iv) Particulars of the Driving Licence;
but the respondent No.2 has not supplied the
required information/particulars to the applicant/
respondent No.3 till date.
 -2-

3. That as per the terms and condition of the

insurance Policy, if any, the respondent No.2 is
supposed to cooperate the applicant/respondent No.3
in defending the case before the Hon'ble Court, but
as is clear from the above mentioned, facts, he has
not furnished the particulars/informations as
required U/s 134 (c) of the M.V. Act to the
applicant/respondent No.3 till date. In these
circumstances, the applicant/respondent No.3 craves
the leave of this Hon'ble Court to allow the
applicant/ respondent No.3 to defend the case on all
the grounds available to the respondent No.1 & 2
besides the grounds available to the
applicant/respondent No.3 under Section 149(2) of the
M.V. Act.
It is, therefore, prayed that the applicant/
respondent No.3 may kindly be allowed to defend the
case on all the grounds which are available to the
respondents No.1 & 2 besides the grounds available to
the applicant/respondent No.3 U/s 149 (2) of the M.V.
Act.

Verification Respondent no.3

Verified that the The New India Assurance Co.

contents of the above Ltd. through its competent
application are true and Authority
correct to my knowledge
and belief:
Verified at Sonepat.
On ________________ Through Sh. R.P. Antil, Adv.
Sonepat