Motor Accident Claims
seema
(Querist) 23 June 2011
This query is : Resolved
Hi All,
Plz can anyone help me how should i draft the written statement to be filed on behalf of the owner driver before the MOtor Accident Claims Tribunal in an accident case? Can anyone plz share the drafted WS here ? Thanks.
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 24 June 2011
take help of a local lawyer, there will have to be certain specific denials and certain partial or total admissions.
moreover if some criminal case is pending then your WS shall not be of damaging character.
all depends upon facts and circumstances of the case, seek help of local lawyer.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 24 June 2011
all depends upon facts pleaded in Claim petition, no ready draft of the written statement can be there.
Guest
(Expert) 24 June 2011
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
Claim petition u/s 166 of M.V.
Act, 1988 as amended up to date
Written statement on behalf of the respondent no. 1
Sir,
The answering respondent respectfully submits as under:-
Preliminary objections:-
1. That the claim petition filed by the petitioner is false, frivolous, vague, incomplete and insufficient as well and the same is liable to be dismissed. Even the verification of the petition is highly defective.
2. That the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present claim petition.
3. That the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present claim petition.
4. That the petition is bad for the non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties. Hence the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. That the petitioner is estopped by his own act and conduct from the filling of the present claim petition.
6. That the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form.
7. That no accident as alleged ever took place on the given date and time with the vehicle Tata Sumo ambulance bearing the registration no HR-61-2943 while allegedly driven by the answering defendant and an FIR has been falsely registered against the respondent just to grab the money from the answering defendant in collusion with the local police and other witnesses without any prior investigation or interrogation and the said vehicle and the answering respondent has been falsely implicated in the present claim petition in order to wrongly and illegally fetch the money from the respondent. So the petitioner is not entitled to any type of the compensation at all under the law of the torts and under the M.V. Act 1988 as no accident took place on the given date and time with the said vehicle Tata Sumo Ambulance bearing the registration no HR-61-2943. Hence the claim petition of the petitioner is also liable to be dismissed on this ground alone qua the answering respondent.
8. That at the time of the alleged accident, the vehicle in question Tata Sumo Ambulance bearing the registration no HR-61-2943 was insured with the respondent no 3 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Yamunanagar, Distt Yamunanagar, vide cover note no 571932 dated 07.07.2010 having the validity from the 08.07.2010 to 07.07.2011. The answering respondent is also having a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle Tata Sumo Ambulance in question. In the case the Hon’ble Tribunal finds that the petitioner is to be entitled to any amount of compensation, though not admitted as no accident as alleged ever took place on the given date, and time with the alleged vehicle Tata Sumo Ambulance in question while allegedly being driven by the answering respondent, then the insurance company being the insurer of the vehicle is liable to indemnify all the liabilities arisen out against the answering respondent. Hence the claim petition is also liable to be dismissed on this ground alone qua the answering respondent.
9. That the claim petition being false and vague in all probability will result in dismissal, however, it is submitted that the answering respondent was having a valid and effective driving license at the time of the alleged accident. Hence the petition is also liable to be dismissed on this ground alone qua the answering respondent.
10. That the petition with a view to harass and humiliate the respondent was filed and the respondent is entitled to special cost of Rs. 10,000/- from the petitioner.
Reply on merits:-
1. To 6. That the contents of the paras no 1 to 6 of the claim petition are denied for the want of the knowledge. The petitioner be put to strict proof to prove the averments made in this para.
7. That the contents of the para no 7 of the claim petition needs no reply.
8. That the contents of the para no 8 of the claim petition are totally
wrong, incorrect, hence it is specifically denied and controverted. No accident as alleged ever took place on the given place, date and time with the vehicle Tata Sumo Ambulance bearing the registration no HR-61-2943 while allegedly being driven by the answering respondent. The detailed reply has been given in the para no 7 of the preliminary objection, which may kindly be read as part and parcel of the reply of this para.
9. That with regard to the contents of the para no 9 of the petition, it is
submitted that a false case was registered against the respondent no. 1 in collusion with the local police of the police station of Ratia Teshil Ratia Distt Fatehabad just to fetch the compensation from the answering respondent.
10.to 13. That the contents of the para np 10 to 13 of the claim petition
are denied for the want of the knowledge. The petition be put to the strict proof to prove the averments made in these paras.
14. That the contents of the para no 14 of the claim petition are totally
wrong, incorrect, hence it is denied specifically and controverted. The Tata Sumo Ambulance bearing the registration no HR-61-2943 was not involved in the alleged accident.
15. That with regard to the para no 15 of the claim petition it is submitted
that at the time of the alleged accident, the vehicle in question Tata Sumo Ambulance bearing the registration o HR-61-2943 was insured with the respondent no. 3 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Branch office Yamunanagar, Distt Yamunanagar, vide insurance cover note no 571932 dated 07.07.2010 valid from 08.07.2010 to 07.07.2011. However, it is submitted that no accident took place on the given date, time , place with the vehicle Tata Sumo Ambulance in question.
16. That the contents of the para no 16 of the claim petition it is
submitted that though the respondent no 2 is the owner of the vehicle Tata Sumo Ambulance bearing the registration o HR-61-2943, but the said vehicle was not involved in the alleged accident.
17. That the contents of the para no 17 of the claim petition are correct in
so far as these pertains to the answering respondent.
18 That the contents of the para no 18 of the claim petition are denied for
the want of the knowledge. The petitioner be put to strict proof to prove the averment made in this para.
19. That the contents of the para no 19 of the claim petition are denied
for the want of knowledge. The petitioner be put to strict proof to prove the averments in this para.
20. That the contents of the para no 19 of the claim petition are denied
for the want of knowledge. The petitioner be put to strict proof to prove the averments in this para.
21.That the contents of the para no 21 of the petition are totally
incorrect and hence denied specifically and controverted. The petitioner is not entitled to any amount of compensation from the answering respondent as no accident as alleged ever took place at the given date, and time with the vehicle Tata Sumo Ambulance bearing the registration no HR-61-2943 while allegedly being driven by the answering respondent. The detailed reply of this para has already given in the para no 7 of the preliminary objections, which may kindly be read as a part and parcel of reply of this para.
22. That the contents of the para no 22 of the claim petition are denied
for the want of knowledge.
23. That the contents of the para no 23 of the petition are legal.
24. That the contents of the para no 24 of the claim petition are totally
incorrect, hence denied specifically and controverted. The petitioner has made a false, frivolous and concocted story in this para.
In fact, no accident as alleged ever took place on the given date and time with the vehicle bearing the registration no HR-61-2943 while allegedly being driven by the answering respondent and an FIR has been falsely registered against the answering respondent just to grab the money from the respondent in collusion with the local police and other witnesses without any prior investigation or interrogation and the said vehicle and the answering respondent has been falsely implicated in the present claim petition in order to wrongly and illegally fetch the compensation from him. So the petitioner is not entitled to any type compensation at all under the law of the torts and under the M.V. Act, 1988 as no accident took place on the given date and time with the said vehicle Tata Sumo Ambulance bearing the registration no HR-61-2943. Hence the claim petition of the petitioner is also liable to be dismissed on this ground alone qua the answering respondent. The answering respondent is also having a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle Tata Sumo Ambulance in question.
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that in the view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances the claim petition of the petitioner against the answering respondent may kindly be dismissed with special costs.
However, in case the Hon’ble Tribunal finds the petitioner to be entitles to any amount of compensation, though not admitted as no accident as alleged ever took place on the given date, and time with the vehicle Tata Sumo Ambulance in question, while being driven by the answering respondent, then the liabilities arisen out of against the answering respondent may kindly be fastened upon the insurance company with which the Tata Sumo Ambulance in question was insured, being the insurer of the vehicle in the interest of justice and equity.
Verification:-
Verified that the contents of the para no 1 to 10 of the preliminary objections and the contents of the para no 1 to 24 of the reply on merits are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and the information received in this regard.
Dated: Place: Fatehabad. Respondent no 1.
Through:
Sachdev Bishnoi
Advocate, Fatehabad.
seema
(Querist) 24 June 2011
Thanks all for the replies. Thanks Sachdev for posting the draft of the WS.
