1
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARENDER SINGH, LD. MACT, SONEPAT
Jai Jadhaw …Petitioner
Versus
Ajay and others …Respondents
In the matter of: –
Claim Petition-MACP/ /2024
Written Statement on behalf of respondent
No. 3 i.e. The New India 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 and in violation of the terms and conditions of
the insurance policy, if any. Hence the claim
petition of the petitioners is liable to be dismissed
on this score only.
2. That the driver of Car bearing registrations No.HR-
01AH-6524 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
2
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 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 Car bearing registrations No.HR-01AH-
6524. The Car bearing registrations No.HR-01AH-6524
and its driver have been falsely involved 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. It is wrong
and denied that the claimant was earning Rs.20,000/-
per month as alleged. The income by the claimant 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
No.398 dated 05.12.2023, U/s 279/337 IPC is
concerned, which have been falsely lodged with the
collusion of the local police and the answering
respondent alongwith respondents No.1 & 2 have been
falsely implicated in this case, as no accident ever
took place with Car bearing registrations No.HR-01AH-
6524.
10. That the contents of para no.10 of the claim petition
as stated need no specific 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/petitioner has spent Rs.20,00,000/- on his
treatment, transportation medicine, special diet,
attendant etc. as alleged. It is also wrong and
denied that the claimant/petitioner has become
permanent disabled and is still undertreatment 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. However, the Car bearing registrations No.HR-
01AH-6524 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.
4
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.
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. The claimant/petitioner be put to strict
proof regarding 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. As
stated earlier that no accident ever took place with
the Car in question.
23. That the contents of para no. 23 of the claim
petition as stated are wrong and hence denied. It is
submitted that the 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
5
place with Car bearing registrations No.HR-01AH-6524.
It is submitted that no accident ever took place with
Car bearing registrations No.HR-01AH-6524. The
answering respondent along with the respondents No.1
and 2 have been falsely implicated by the claimant in
this case with the ulterior motive to extract money
from the answering respondent in-collusion with the
local police. As stated above no accident took place
with Car bearing registrations No.HR-01AH-6524 the
question of driving the said vehicle by the
respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner does
not arise at all. However, as per the version of the
FIR the accident took place on 30.11.2023 while the
FIR has been lodged on 05.12.2023 falsely and in-
collusion with the local police after a delay of 06
days, which amply clears that no such accident ever
took place with vehicle in question. It is further
submitted that if the Hon'ble court comes to the
conclusion that the accident took place with Car
bearing registrations No.HR-01AH-6524, it is a case
of contributory negligence on the part of claimant
himself who was driving his Motorcycle bearing
registration No.MH-12EJ-1663 in a rash and
negligent manner and suddenly stopped his
motorcycle in the middle of the road without giving
any indicator/indication and caused the accident.
It is also vehemently denied that the
claimant/petitioner have suffered mental agony,
shock, pain, harassment and financial loss etc. as
alleged. The amount of compensation as claimed is
totally wrong, false, excessive, exorbitant,
exaggerated and without any basis. The claimant and
6
Performa Respondents 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.
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 are 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 are for any compensation,
either humbly or partly and/or interim, the insurer
shall not be saddled with payment of interest to the
petitioners for the period of delay and/or default
caused by the claimant/petitioner in the claim
7
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 claimant/petitioner 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.
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
8
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.3
Verified that the contents The New India Assurance
of Para No. 1 to 5 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 Sonepat
the official records which
I believe to be true.
Verified at Sonepat.
On ________________
9
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARENDER SINGH, LD. MACT, SONEPAT
Jai Jadhaw etc. …Petitioners
Versus
Ajay and 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 India 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. 2 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.2 has not supplied the
required information/particulars to the applicant/
respondent No.3 till date.
3. That as per the terms and condition of the insurance
Policy, if any, the respondent No.2 is supposed to
10
-2-
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/information 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 respondents 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
respondent No.1 and 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
