1

IN THE COURT OF DR. SANJEEV ARYA, LD. MACT, SONEPAT

Jitender …Petitioner
Versus

Dharampal and another …Respondents

In the matter of: –

Claim Petition

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

NO.2 I.E. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

R/Sir,
The respondent No.2 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 and in violation of the terms and conditions of
the insurance policy, if any.
2. That the driver of Car Bearing Regn. No.HR-42H-4312
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.1
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
 2

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 claimant/petitioner.
4. That the claimant/petitioner has no cause of action
to file the present claim petition against the
answering respondent as the alleged accident was not
caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the
respondent No.1. The vehicle i.e. Car Bearing Regn.
No.HR-42H-4312 has been falsely implicated in this
case.
5. That at the time of the alleged accident, the vehicle
in question was being driven in contravention of the
terms & conditions and limitation 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 claimant/petitioner 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 injured as shown is wrong, false, excessive
and imaginary one.
7. That the contents of para no. 7 of the claim petition
as stated need no specific reply.
8&9. That in reply to the contents of para nos. 8 & 9 of
the claim petition it is submitted that so far as FIR
 3

is concerned, it is a matter of record, but the

respondent No.1 has been falsely implicated in this
case, as the alleged accident was not caused due to
the alleged rash and negligent driving of respondent
No.1 with Car Bearing Regn. No.HR-42H-4312 as
alleged.
10. That the contents of para no. 10 of the claim
petition as stated are need no reply.
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
claimant has spent Rs.3,00,000/- on treatment,
special diet, transportation, medicine etc. as
alleged.
14-15. That in reply to the contents of para nos. 14 and
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.1 and
the name of the driver to the answering respondent
and in the absence of the same, the factum of
ownership and the driver of the vehicle is denied. It
is submitted that the Car Bearing Regn. No.HR-42H-
4312 was not the offending vehicle 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.1, which
was mandatory on his part as per section 134 (c) of
the M.V. Act and in the absence of the policy
particulars, the factum of insurance is not proved.
The respondent No.1 was having no insurable interest
in the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged
 4

accident and in case the respondent No.1 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 and subject to compliance of
Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act. 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.
17. That the contents of para no.17 of the claim petition
as stated needs no specific reply.
18to20. That the contents of the para nos. 18 to 20 of
the claim petition as stated are denied for want of
knowledge. The claimant/petitioner 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 alleged accident took
place due to the rash and negligent driving of
respondent No.1 as alleged. Detailed reply is being
given in reply to para No.24 of the claim petition.
23. That the contents of para no. 23 of the claim
petition as stated are wrong and hence denied. It is
submitted that the claim petition is hopelessly time
barred.
 5

24. That the contents of para no. 24 of the claim

petition as stated are wrong and therefore denied.
The respondent No.1 has not disclosed the factum of
the alleged accident to the answering respondent,
which was mandatory on his part as per section 134
(C) of 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 Car Bearing Regn. No.HR-42H-4312 at a very normal
speed, on correct side of the road and by observing
all the traffic rules and it was the claimant
himself, who was driving his Motorcycle No.HR-60E-
4913 in a rash and negligent manner and by violating
the traffic rules and he was the author of the
alleged accident. It is wrong and denied that the
alleged accident caused by the respondent No.1 by
driving Car Bearing Regn. No.HR-42H-4312 in a rash
and negligent manner as alleged. It is further
submitted that a false case has been got registered
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 claimant/petitioner. It is
further submitted that if the Hon'ble court comes to
the conclusion that that the said accident took place
with Car Bearing Regn. No.HR-42H-4312 it is a case of
contributory negligence on the part of the claimant.
It is submitted that without Prejudice to the
rights of the insurer and without admitting any
 6

liability, the claimant 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 claimant/petitioner 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
claimant/petitioner is entitled for any compensation
alongwith 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 claimant/petitioner is 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 claimant/petitioner 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.
 7

The claimant/petitioner is 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.
Prayer clause of the claim petition is also
wrong and hence denied. It is, therefore, prayed that
the claim petition of the claimant/petitioner, which
is based on wrong and false facts may kindly be
dismissed with costs against the answering respondent
to meet the ends of justice.

ADDITIONAL PLEAS:-
1. 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 pleas/defences available to it under the
M.V. Act i.e. U/s 147, 149 and 170 of the Act.
2. That the claimant/petitioner 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 with in the country. The
claimant/petitioner 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 claimant/petitioner shall be at liberty to
retain the award first made and be directed to refund
the subsequent compensation amount.
 8

It is, therefore, prayed that the claim petition

of the claimant/petitioner, 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.2

Verified that the The New India Assurance Co.

contents of Para No. 1 to Ltd. through its competent
5 of the Preliminary Authority
objection and para No. 1
to 24 of the reply on
Merits of the written
statement are true and Through Sh. R.P. Antil, Adv.
correct to my knowledge Sonepat
and are based on the
information derived from
the official records
which I believe to be
true.
Verified at Sonepat.
On ________________
 9

IN THE COURT OF DR. SANJEEV ARYA, LD. MACT, SONEPAT

Jitender …Petitioner
Versus

Dharampal and another …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 INDIA ASSURANCE CO.
LTD.

R/Sir,
The applicant/respondent No.2 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.3 immediately 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.1 has not supplied the
required information/particulars to the applicant/
respondent No.2 till date.
3. That as per the terms and condition of the insurance
Policy, if any, the respondent No.1 is supposed to
 10

-2-

cooperate the applicant/respondent No.2 in defending

the case before the Hon'ble Court, but as is clear
from the above mentioned, facts, he has not furnished
the particulars/information as required U/s 134 (c)
of the M.V. Act to the applicant/respondent No.2 till
date. In these circumstances, the
applicant/respondent No.3 craves the leave of this
Hon'ble Court to allow the applicant/ respondent No.2
to defend the case on all the grounds available to
the respondents No.1 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.2 may kindly be allowed to defend the
case on all the grounds which are available to the
respondent No.1 besides the grounds available to the
applicant/respondent No.2 U/s 149 (2) of the M.V.
Act.

Verification Respondent no.2

Verified that the contents United India Insurance

of the above application Ltd. through its competent
are true and correct to my Authority
knowledge and are based on
the information derived
from the official records
which I believe to be true. Through Sh. R.P. Antil,
Verified at Sonepat. Adv.
On _______________ Sonepat