1. The respondent No.

1 is not aware of the contents of para 1 to 5

of the petition and hence are denied. The petition is filled in
collusion with respondent No. 3 with oblique motives. The
petition is also misconceived in facts and law.
2. The contents of para no. 6 are denied. The applicant is put to
strict proof thereof.
3. With reference to the contents of para nos. 7 and 8, it is stated
that the respondent No.1 is not aware of the contents thereof.
4. With reference to the contents of para no. 9, it is stated that on
9/5/2006, the Calangute Police called the respondent No.1 to
the Police Station and informed him that his car was involved
in an accident and that he had to be arrested. The Police
further informed the respondent No.1 to arrange a surety so as
to release him on bail. The respondent No.1 informed the
Police that ____________ with any accident with his car,
however the Police informed the respondent No.1 that as the
offence was registered against the respondent No.1_______ the
complainant of one Neelesh from Old Goa, the arrest was a
mere formality. The respondent No.1 informed the police that
he did not know any person by name Neelesh from Old Goa.
5. With reference to the contents of para Nos.10, 11 and 12, it is
stated that this respondent is not aware of the consents
thereof. It is further stated that this respondent has in no way
contributed towards the accident.
6. With reference to the contents of para No.13, it is not disputed
that Maruti Swift No. GA-01-R 9237 belongs to this
respondent. It is however denied that the Maruti Swift car of
the respondent no.1 was involved in any accident with motor
cycle GA-01-A-6880.
7. With reference to the contents of para Nos. 14 and 15, this
respondent is not aware of the contents thereof. It is denied
 that the application had to incurr an expenditure of Rs. 1, 25,
000/- ( Rupess One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand Only)or any
part thereof. The applicant is put to strict proof thereof. As
stated above, this respondent is not at all concerned with the
accident.
8. With reference to the contents of para no.16, it is reiterated
that this respondent is neither concerned nor involved in the
said accident.
9. With reference to the contents of para No.17, the policy
number of the Maruti Swift car of this respondent insured
with the National Insurance Company Ltd. Mapusa is not
disputed. This respondent is not aware of the remaining
contents of para No. 17.
10. With reference to the contents of para Nos. 20 and 21, the
respondent No. 4 is not aware of the contents thereof.
11. With reference to the contents of para no. 22, it is stated that
the respondent No.1 is not liable to pay the compensation or
any part thereof for the reasons mentioned hereinabove.
Without prejudice to the above it is stated that the purported
compensation as claimed is speculative and exaggerated.
12. With reference to the contents of para No. 23 (I), (II), (III), (IV),
(V) & (VI) which are contrary to the case of respondent No.1
as stated hereinabove are denied. It is stated that the contents
thereof are incorrect. The applicant is put to strict proof
thereof.
With further reference to the contents of para no. 23 and
the sub paras, it is stated that on 8/5/2006, this respondent
was not driving his car at about 2:45 p.m. on the Porvorim-
Calangute road near Saligao Church and hence the allegation
that this respondent suddenly came from the opposite side by
overtaking one Maruti Van in high speed in rash and
 negligent manner and could not control the car and came to
the wrong side and dashed to the motor cycle, due to which
the applicants allegedly sustained grievous injuries to his right
leg and fracture to his right hand are wholly untrue. It is
denied that after the purported accident, the driver of the
Maruti car ran away without giving information of the
accident to the police and without helping the injured person.
It is denied that the accident took place due to rash and
negligent driving of the Maruti Swift car by his driver. The
Police registered the case at the behest of the applicant with
oblique motives and in connivance with the applicant and the
respondent No. 3. This respondent is not in any way
concerned with the accident and the injuries caused to the
applicant.
13. The respondent No. 1 shall rely on the documents, a list of
which is annexed hereto.

1. I am holding driving licence issued by the competent

authority since the year 7/2/202 valid till 6/2/2022.
2. I say that my above said vehicle has been duly insured with
the National Insurance Company and payment to the
Insurance Company is paid regularly from time to time. I say
that as on 8/5/2006 my car was duly insured.
3. I say that a false case is filed against me by the petitioner in
collusion with the respondent No. 3 with oblique motives.
4. I say that on 9/5/2006 the Calangute Police called me to the
Police Station and informed me that my car was involved in
an accident and I would be arrested and further told me to
arrange for the surety for the purpose of releasing me on bail.
5. I say that I told the police that I had not met with any accident
with my car however the Police informed that the offence is
already registered against me on the complaint filed by one
Nilesh from Old Goa and the arrest will be mere formality
inspite of telling them I do not know who Nilesh was.
6. I say that I have in no way contributed towards the accident
and not at all concerned with the accident nor involved in the
accident.
7. I say that a fabricated chargesheet was filed by the Calangute
Police before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mapusa
bearing Criminal Case No. 173/2006/C however I have been
acquitted in the said Criminal Case.
8. I say that it is incorrect that on 8/5/2006 I was driving my
Maruti Swift car at about 2.45 p.m. on the Porvorim,
Calangute road near Saligao Church and that I suddenly
came opposite side by overtaking one Maruti Van in high
speed in a rash and negligent manner as alleged. It is false that
I could not control the car and came to the wrong side and
dashed the Motor Cycle as alleged due to which the petitioner
allegedly sustained grievous injuries to his right leg and
fracture to his right hand as alleged and further deny being
 false that I ran away from the spot of incident without giving
information to the Police and without helping the injured. I
have been falsely implicated.
9. I say that a false case was registered against me by the
Calangute Police at the behest of the petitioner. I have been
acquitted in the said case.
10. I deny being false that accident took place on account of my
rash and negligent driving resulting in the injuries to the
petitioner as falsely alleged by the claimant.
11. I say that the contents of this Affidavit-in Evidence are true to
my own knowledge.