BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

IN THE COURT OF THE 1st ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE::ONGOLE

M.V.O.P.No.391/2011
Between:
Nisinam Sobha

Petitioner
Vs

SK.Rahiman and another

Respondents

WIRTTEN STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2nd

RESPONDENT/CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
The 2nd respondent/CHOLAMANDALAM MS General Insurance
Company Limited submits the following written statement:1.

That all the allegations made in the claim petition are neither true nor

correct and hence the same are denied in toto.

2.

That all the allegations made in the claim petition which are not

expressly admitted herein and also traversed to have been denied by this
respondent Insurance Company and such of those allegations are put to strict
proof of the same by the petitioners alone.
3.

That all the allegations made in the claim petition that the petitioners

are the wife, children and parents of the deceased and the deceased aged
about 37 years and he is working as driver of lorry under the 1 st respondent
and he is earning Rs.9,000/- per month and on the date of accident i.e.,
3-8-2011 the 1st respondent entrusted the work of loading Jamil sticks at
Pamur to be transported to Barmi of Maharastra State and the vehicle started
at 10 p.m., on 3-8-2011 and the vehicle passed Anjanapuram and reached
outskirts of Veerapuram Village and near Korigunthala the incident took
place and when the vehicle reached near outskirts of Veerapuram Village,
suddenly a lorry came from opposite direction and the deceased tried to

avert probable accident the lorry which he was driving fell to its left and the
cleaner survived miraculously but the driver could not escape and fell under
the lorry and died instanteously and the petitioner is claiming compensation
of Rs.7,00,000/- under all heads with subsequent interest, costs and such
other reliefs are one and all false and the same are concocted for the
purpose of filing of this petition and getting compensation from this
respondent insurance Company.
4.

It is submitted that this respondent insurance company does not admit

the narration made in the petition relating to the manner in which the
accident is described to have taken place. The occurrence of the accident
and the alleged involvement of the deceased is denied in toto. However, the
petitioners are put to strict proof of the same.
5.

It is submitted that the deceased driving the Lorry bearing No.

AP 27 V 8681 with minimum speed with blowing horn, but the opposite
lorry driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner in high speed without
blowing horn and dashed against the deceaseds lorry and caused the
accident. The entire negligence is on the part of the opposite lorry and there
is no negligence or rashness on the part of the deceased and this respondent
is not liable to pay any compensation. The petitioners are put to strict proof
of the same.
6.

It is submitted that this respondent company further submits that the

driver (deceased) of the Lorry bearing No.AP 27 V 8681 was not having
valid and effective driving licence and also the vehicle was not having any
valid permit to ply on the route and there is no valid policy at the time of
accident and as such this respondent insurance company is not liable to pay

any compensation to the petitioners. The petitioners are put to strict proof
that the Lorry was roadworthy at the time of accident and was proceeding
with a valid permit both with regard to the usage & route.
7.

It is submitted that driver of opposite crime lorry was not having valid

driving license and the opposite lorry has no valid permit and registration at
the time of accident.
8.

It is further submitted that the owner and the insurance company if

any of the opposite crime lorry are necessary parties to the claim petition.
For non-joinder of necessary parties, the claim petition is not maintainable
9.

It is submitted that this respondent insurance company does not admit

the age, income, avocation and health condition of the deceased and used to
earn Rs.9,000/- per month as a driver under the 1st respondent. However, the
petitioners are put to strict proof of the same.
10.

It is submitted that the matter of the accident is not reported by the

insured in collusion with the petitioners with a view to cause loss to this
respondent insurance company and as such this respondent insurance
company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. However,
the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same.
11.

It is submitted that in any case the amount of compensation of

Rs.7,00,000/- claimed by the petitioners in the claim application is highly

excessive, arbitrary and out of all proportions and the petitioners are not
entitled for any amount.
12.

It is submitted that this respondent insurance company submits that if

this Honble Court comes to a conclusion that the petitioners are entitled any
amount of compensation against this respondent insurance company, the

interest should be restricted at 6% p.a., as per the decision of our Supreme

Court.
13.

It is submitted that this respondent insurance company may be

permitted to file supplementary or additional written statement or amended

written statement if found necessary at a later stage.
14.

It is submitted that this respondent insurance company seeks

protection U/s.149 and 170 of M.V.Act.

For the reasons stated above the grounds to be urged at the time of
hearing, this respondent insurance company prays that the Honble Court
may be pleased to dismiss the claim petition with costs of this respondent
insurance company.

Be pleased to consider

ADVOCATE FOR R2

2nd RESPONDENT

It is hereby declared that whatever sated above is true and correct

to the best of my knowledge, belief and information.
ONGOLE
Dt:-07-12-2011

2nd RESPONDENT

E.R.S.R
Respondent-3

IN THE COURT OF THE 1st ADDL.

DISTRICT JUDGE :: ONGOLE

M.V.O.P.No.391/2011

WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON

BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT No-2

FILED BY:Sri E.RAJASEKHAR REDDY,

ADVOCATE, ONGOLE.