1

IN THE COURT OF SH. PARMOD GOYAL, LD. MACT, SONEPAT

Nirmla …Petitioner
Versus

Jasmer Singh and others …Respondents

In the matter of: –

Claim Petition

Written Statement on behalf of respondent

No. 3A i.e. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

R/Sir,
The respondent No.3A 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 Jeep Bolero bearing Regn. No.HR-
70GV-3023 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,
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.
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
 2

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 no alleged accident ever took
place with the Jeep Bolero bearing Regn. No.HR-70GV-
3023. The respondent no.1 and the Jeep Bolero bearing
Regn. No.HR-70GV-3023 have been falsely involved in
this case only with the intention to grab
compensation from the answering respondent.
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. It is wrong
and denied that the claimant was earning Rs.26,000/-
per month as alleged. The income of the claimant as
shown is wrong, false, excessive and imaginary one.
7&8. That the contents of para no.7 and 8 of the claim
petition as stated need no specific reply.
9&10 That in reply to the contents of para nos. 8 & 9 of
the claim petition it is submitted that so far as FIR
is concerned, it is a matter of record, but the
 3

answering respondent has been falsely implicated in

this case, as no accident ever took place with Jeep
Bolero bearing Regn. No.HR-70GV-3023.
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/petitioner has spend Rs.5,00,000/- on
treatment, transportation, special diet and attendant
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. 2 to
the answering respondent and in the absence of the
same, the factum of ownership of the vehicle is
denied. However, the Jeep Bolero bearing Regn. No.HR-
70GV-3023 was not involved in the alleged accident.
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 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.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
 4

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 need no specify reply.
18to20. That the contents of the para nos. 18 to 20 of
the claim petition as stated are denied for want of
knowledge.
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 submitted that no accident ever took place with
Jeep Bolero bearing Regn. No.HR-70GV-3023. Therefore,
the question of rash and negligent driving on the
part of the respondent no.1 does not arise at all.
23. That the contents of para no. 23 of the claim
petition as stated are wrong and therefore denied.
The present claim petition is hopelessly time barred.
24. That the contents of para no. 24 of the claim
petition as stated are wrong and therefore denied. It
is wrong and denied that the alleged accident took
place with Jeep Bolero bearing Regn. No.HR-70GV-3023.
It is submitted that no accident ever took place with
Jeep Bolero bearing Regn. No.HR-70GV-3023. The
answering respondent has been falsely implicated by
the claimant/petitioner in this case with the
ulterior motive to extract money from the answering
respondent in-collusion with the local police. It is
submitted that no accident ever took place with Jeep
Bolero bearing Regn. No.HR-70GV-3023. Therefore, the
 5

question of rash and negligent driving on the part of

the respondent no.1 does not arise at all. It is
submitted that the alleged accident is a hit and run
case and might have been caused by some unknown
vehicle. It is also vehemently denied that the
claimant/petitioner have suffered mental agony,
shock, pain and harassment etc. as alleged. The
amount of compensation as claimed is totally wrong,
false, excessive, exorbitant, exaggerated and without
any basis. The claimant/petitioner is not entitled to
get 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.
It is submitted that without Prejudice to the
rights of the insurer and without admitting any
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 Section 145A (b) and 194A (3)(ixa) of
IT 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
Forum 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
 6

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 humbly 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 are
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 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.
 7

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 plea(s)/defence(s) 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.
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.3A

Verified that the contents of The New India Assurance

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