IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF SH.

JAGDISH KUMAR,
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT- 02, SOUTH WEST,
DWARKA COURTS DELHI

IN MACT No. 334/2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

ARTEE DEVI … PETITIONER

VERSUS

LALAN JHA & ORS … RESPONDENTS

N.D.O.H: 06/02/ 2024

INDEX

S.No. Particulars Pages

1 WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 2 1-10

22. 2. AFFADAVIT 11

Through

Heramb Sharma

New Delhi Counsel for Respondent No.2

6/33-B Jungpura- B, New Delhi

Mobile number: 7837038956

E-mail: sharma.heramb04@gmail.com
IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR,
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT- 02, SOUTH WEST,
DWARKA COURTS DELHI

IN MACT No. 334/2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

ARTEE DEVI … PETITIONER

VERSUS

LALAN JHA & ORS … RESPONDENTS

N.D.O.H: 06/02/ 2024

WRITTEN STATEMENT & REPLY FILED ON BEHALF OF

RESPONDENT NO. 2 i.e., GODIGIT GENERAL INSUR -
ANCE COMPANY LIMITED

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS: -

1. At the outset, Respondent expressly denies all the allegations and

averments levelled against it, except for those which are
specifically admitted or replied to.

2. The answering respondent no.02 does not admit and denies that
PS Shivaji Nagar, Gurugram, Haryana registered any case
against the driver of insured vehicle as alleged bearing Crime No.
0048 dt. 30.01.21 U/s 279/337of IPC. All the contents of police
papers are denied. Hence the Petitioners are put to strict proof of
the same with cogent evidence.

3. That, there is delay of more than 3 Months and 20 days in

lodging of FIR. As per FIR, filed on 30.01.2021 Further, as per
FIR, accident occurred on 14.10.2020 while as per petition, the
 accident occurred on 10.10.2020. Hence, the answering
Respondent no. 2 specifically denies the involvement of the
vehicle bearing no. HR-55-AE-7941 in the alleged accident dated
10.10.2020.

4. The answering Respondent no.02 submits that the vehicle

bearing HR-55-AE-7941 is falsely implicated and involved in the
alleged accident by the Petitioners by acting in collusion with
police machinery and Respondent no. 1 with sole intention just to
grab wrongful gains from the answering Respondent no. 2. The
answering Respondent no. 2 strictly denies involvement of
vehicle number HR-55-AE-7941 in the alleged accident and the
claim may be dismissed on this ground alone against the
respondents.

5. The answering Respondent no.02 specifically submits that

petitioner is not coming with clean hands before this tribunal and
as such are not at all entitled for any relief as claimed for and that
all the allegations made in the petition are not true and correct
and they are baseless and misleading and hence, the petitioner is
not entitled for any compensation.

6. Without prejudice to the above contentions and without

admitting any involvement and liability of the vehicle bearing no.
HR-55-AE-7941 in the alleged accident, the answering
Respondent no.02 submits as under: -

I) PRELIMINARY FACTS: -

7. The address of the above respondent No. 2 i.e., Go Digit General

Insurance Co. Ltd., for the purpose of service of all notices,
process etc. is 5th Floor- B wing, IFCI Tower, Nehru Place
Delhi-110019.
8. All the material allegations made in the above petition are false
and the petition is not maintainable either on facts or in law
against the answering Respondent No. 2. Hence, the petition is
liable to be dismissed in limini with costs against the answering
Respondent No. 2.

9. The answering Respondent No. 2 admits that the interest of Mr.

Lalan Jha was covered at the material time under the policy of
insurance issued by the answering Respondent No. 2 for vehicle
bearing number HR 55 AE 7941 subject to the terms, conditions,
exception and limitations thereof and the confirmation of the
compliance of Sec. 64 VB of the Insurance Act, 1938. The
insurance policy issued by the answering Respondent No. 2 in
favour of the insured bears No. D012235390/16012020 for the
period from 17-Jan-2020; 12:53:41 hrs to 16-Jan-2021; 23:59 hrs
for own damage and Third-Party Liability. The insured i.e.
Respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to produce the original
insurance policy before the Hon'ble Tribunal, failing which, this
answering Respondent no.02 shall produce the copy of the policy
which may kindly be exhibited and read in evidence.

II) STATUTORY DEFENCES: -

10. The person driving the vehicle has 'no relation in force' as on the
date of accident to drive the vehicle.

11. It is submitted that the Owner cum Driver of the vehicle bearing
reg. No HR 55 AE 7941 i.e., Respondent No. 1 was not holding a
valid and effective driving license at the time of accident was not
holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the
accident and further was not qualified for holding or obtaining
such driving license and further has not satisfied the requirements
 of the Rule No. 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The
Respondent no. 1 wilfully and knowingly has allowed the vehicle
to be driven by him while not possessing valid and effective
driving license as on the material time of the alleged accident and
therefore, has contravened the proviso of the M.V. Act and the
Rules framed there under and has committed the wilful breach of
the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the present
respondent is not liable to indemnify the insured/respondent no.1
and hence, not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.

Ⅲ) GENERAL DEFENCES: -

12. The respondent no.03 seeks protection under the section 147 and
149 of M.V. Act 1988.

13. The answering Respondent no.02 humbly submits that as per

section 134 (C) of M.V. Act 1988, its mandatory duty of the
insured/ Respondent No. 1 herein to furnish the particulars of
policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of injured and
the name of the driver and particulars of the driving license but
the insured /Respondent no.01 herein has not complied with
statutory demand. Hence the answering Respondent no.02 is not
liable to pay any compensation and the case is liable to be
dismissed against the answering Respondent for non-compliance
of statutory demand.

14. The answering Respondent no.02 further submits that as per Sec.
158(6) of M.V. Act. 1988, it is a mandatory duty of the
concerned Police Station to forward all the relevant documents to
the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of the
information but the concerned Police Station failed to forward
the document and not complied with the statutory demand.
15. The Petitioner has claimed interest @ 18% which is highly
excessive and same is contrary to Sec. 3 of Interest Act, 1978 and
the observations of the various judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court.

16. It is submitted by the answering Respondent no.02 that in this

case there is doubt of driver swapping as the actual driver did not
have valid driving license and hence, driver was swapped with
the one having valid and effective license to drive the said
insured vehicle.

17. It is submitted by the answering Respondent no.02 that, this

present petition is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of
necessary parties and so liable to be dismissed with costs.

IV. REPLY ON MERITS: -

18. The answering Respondent no.02 does not admit and denies
specifically the allegations that the vehicle bearing reg. no. HR-
55-AE-7941 was involved in the above alleged accident and it
was driven in a rash and negligent manner as alleged and
therefore, the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same with
cogent evidence.

19. That the contents of the Para no. 1 to para no. 7 are vehemently
denied being wrong. It is specifically denied that the Injured i.e.
the Petitioner was aged about 41 years and was a daily wage
worker who was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. The petitioner
must be put to strict proof with cogent evidence regarding age,
income and occupation of the injured as alleged.

20. That the contents of the Para no. 8 to para no. 11 are vehemently
denied being wrong and incorrect. The answering Respondent
 no.02 does not admit and specifically denies the allegations
regarding the manner in which the alleged accident said to have
occurred. The allegations that injured suffered with an accident
on 10/10/2020 at 10:30 AM while travelling in Auto bearing
number HR-55-AE-7941 near Traffic Booth, Rajiv Chowk
Gurugram when said auto bearing number HR-55-AE-7941
overturned due to which petitioner got injured. The contents of
this para are denied in toto and the petitioner is put to strict proof
of the same with cogent evidence.

21. That the contents of the Para no. 12 to para no. 13 are
vehemently denied being wrong and incorrect. The answering
Respondent no.02 specifically denies that there is any nexus
between the injuries got by the petitioner and the alleged accident
and the Petitioner is put to strict proof of the same along with
cogent evidence.

22. That the contents of the Para no. 14 are vehemently denied being
wrong and incorrect. The answering respondent specifically
denies that, Petitioner spent Rs 2,00,000/- on her treatment and
the Petitioner is put to strict proof of the same along with cogent
evidence.

23. The contents of Para no. 15 to Para no. 22 needs no reply. The
answering Respondent submits that they are self-explanatory and
need no reply and Petitioner is put to strict proof of the same
along with cogent evidence.

24. Without prejudice to the above contentions, in reply to Para 23-

26, the answering Respondent submits that the amount of Rs.
20,00,000/-(Twenty Lakhs Only) under various heads along with
interest and costs claimed by the Petitioner in the petition are
 more excessive, exorbitant and exaggerated and hence,
specifically denied and therefore the Petitioner is not entitled for
the same.

25. In reply to Para 28-30, the answering Respondent no.02 submits

that the contents of this written statement may kindly be treated
as say to the application u/s 140 filed by Petitioner.

26. The demands made in the prayer clause of the claim application
are denied specifically by the respondent no.2

27. It is submitted that, this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to try

the present petition.

28. It is also denied that the respondents are jointly and severally
liable to pay the compensation.

29. It is specifically denied that driver of the insured auto was

driving in very high speed in rash and negligent manner. In fact,
on the contrary it is submitted that the Injured herself was
negligent in the accident.

30. The respondent no. 2 craves leave of The Hon'ble Court to take
all defenses available to the respondent no.1 under section 170 of
M.V. Act and contest the case on all the grounds apart from those
specified U/s. 149(2) of M.V. Act.

31. Without prejudice to the rights & contention and without

admitting any liability the answering respondent no.02 further
submits that the claimant/s may be directed to furnish the details
of the PAN (Permanent Account Number allotted by Income Tax
Department), Aadhar details, KYC documents and NEFT details
which may be required as per the provisions of the IT Act or
other relevant prevailing laws.
32. Without prejudice to the above said contentions, the respondents
humbly submits that the Petitioner may have been beneficiary of
the insurance policies, or any accidental risk coverage policy /
must have applied & received benefits from any trust/govt. etc.
and got benefits under the same and must have filed this claim
application in order to gain double monetary benefits of the
already paid expenses. Further, any amounts received by
claimants be deducted from the compensation if any.

33. The respondent no. 2 craves the leave of this Hon'ble Court to
file an additional/amended counter written statement at a later
stage as and when the better particulars come to its knowledge. It
is submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 16th
March 2021 in WP (C) 534 of 2020 tilted Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company Ltd v/s Union of India & Others has passed
slew of directions for MACT, Police and Insurance Co in order
to speedy disposal of third-party accident claims. In order to
comply the directions, the answering Respondent no.02 has
already send details of Nodal officers, Phone No, Email IDs,
office address to MACT and for sake of convenience, the detail
is further furnished as under: -

1. Name of Nodal Officer: - Sh. Divyansh Bhargav

2. Contact No: -
3. Email ID:
4. Address: 5th Floor, B-wing, IFCI Tower, Nehru Place,
110019

34. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed the
MACT to send authenticated copy of award on email ID of
insurance Company. It is, therefore, submitted to send
authenticated copy of award on email ID of answering
 respondent no.02 insurance Company as mentioned on above
para.

35. That without prejudice to the contentions taken and without

admitting any liability the answering respondent no.02 further
submits that if any compensation is awarded by this Hon'ble
tribunal whether interim or final to any petitioner payable by any
answering respondent no.02, such compensation shall be directed
to be deposited through the process of NEFT/RTGS directly to
the bank accounts of the MACT. It is, therefore, submitted that
bank account detail of MACT shall be mentioned in award itself
in order to comply with directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

36. In view of the above facts, the answering Respondent prays that
The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the above petition
and application against The Insurer with costs else, the answering
Respondent company will be put to irreparable loss and injury.

LEGAL OFFICER

Go Digit G.I.C
Ltd.

Through:

HERAMB SHARMA

Date (Counsel for Insurance Company)

VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this Dec 2023 that the contents of the
paragraph from 1 to 10 are true and correct to my knowledge
derived from official records and believed by me to be true and
correct and that no part of it is false and nothing has been
concealed therefrom. I am well conversant with the principles of
computation of compensation and have applied the same to
compute the compensation.

DEPONENT
IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR,
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT- 02, SOUTH WEST,
DWARKA COURTS DELHI

IN MACT No. 334/2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

ARTEE DEVI … PETITIONER

VERSUS

LALAN JHA & ORS … RESPONDENTS

N.D.O.H: 06/02/ 2024

AFFADAVIT IN SUPPORT OF WRITTEN STATEMENT

I, _________________ aged about ___, office at B wing- 5th

Floor, IFCI Tower, 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019, do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That I the above named deponent is working as ________
and is authorized signatory of O.P. No. 2/ Go Digit
General Insurance Co. Ltd & is well conversant with the
facts of the present petition and deponent is competent to
swear to this affidavit.
2. That I have understood the contents of accompanying
Written statement of Para no.1 to 36 and say that they are
true and correct, as per my personal knowledge and the
same be kindly treated as part of my present affidavit.
3. That the Deponent affirms that the contents of the affadavit
are true and correct.
Deponent

Verification:

Verified at New Delhi on this _______day of December 2023

that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been
concealed therefrom.

Deponent