IN THE COURTS OF HONABLE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL, AHMEDNAGAR AT AHMEDNAGAR

M.A.C.P. NO.390/2016
APPLICANT

ANITA SHIVAJI KAWALE

AND OTHERS

OPPENANTS

PRABHAKAR AASMAN GHORTALE

AND OTHERS

WRITTEN STATEMENT AND SAY TO THE APPLICATION U/S.140 OF

THE M.V.ACT ON BEHALF OF THE OPPENANT NO.2 IS AS FOLLOWS:-
1) The contents of the application are not true, correct and legal and
unless specifically admitted in the written statement those are denied
by these opponent.
2) It is submitted that vehicle no MH-16-AY-6177 is insured by the opp.
no 1 with this opp. covering the period from 24-04-2015 to 23-04-2016
subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy issued by
this opp.
3) It is denied that the alleged accident took place due to the
involvement of Vehicle No. MH-16-AY-6177
4) It is denied that deceased was died out of the injuries sustained in the
said accident.
5) Without prejudiced the above statement, it is denied that Vehicle No.
MH-16-AY-6177 was being driven in rash and negligent manner, at an
excessive speed and dash to deceased.
6) It is submitted that vehicle no MH-16-AY-6177 was driven slowly on
right side but deceased not getting vision of the traffic crossed the
road hurrily and dash himself to the vehicle no MH-16-AY-6177 and
invited the accident.
7) Without prejudice to the above statement, it is submitted that the
person driving Vehicle No. MH-16-AY-6177 at the material time of
alleged accident was not possessing effective, valid driving license.
The policy of insurance issued by this opp. in favour of the opp. no.1
excludes the liability of this opp. in case of driving by a person without
 holding effective valid driving license. Even the said vehicle was not
having valid fitness and permit. So as per law and as per terms and
conditions of the policy, this opp. will not be liable to any amount of
compensation.
8) It is further submitted that vehicle No. MH-16-AY-6177 was used in
breach of the terms and conditions of policy. Hence this opp. cannot
be made liable to pay any amount of compensation. This opp. seeks
the protection u/s 147 & 149(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988.
9) This opp. submits that as per section 158(6) of the M.V Act it is
mandatory duty of the concerned Police Authority to submit
information to insurer within 30 days from the date of information.
But the concerned police station failed to forward the documents and
not complied with the statutory demand.
10) It is submitted by this opponent that as per Sec.134 (C) of the
M.V.Act. it is mandatory duty of the insured to furnish the particulars
of policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of the injured,
name of driver, particulars of the driving licenses but the insured has
not complied with statutory demand. Hence this opponent is not
liable to pay any compensation and case is liable to be dismissed.
11) The age of the applicants as well as that of the deceased as mention
in the application are denied by this opponent. The applicant may
directed to strictly prove the same.
12) It is denied that deceased was his own bricks manufacturing business
and earns Rs.15000/- per month and cultivated his own agricultural
land and had milk business and earns from it Rs. 10000/- per month.
The applicants must prove the same.
13) It is denied that the deceased was the only earning hand of the
family.
14) Amount of Rs.1500000/- claimed toward compensation is not at all
admitted to this opponent and it is very much exaggerated also
particulars are not given about the amount in the application.
15) Without admitting any liability it is submitted that if the Hon.
Tribunal is of the opinion that this opponent is liable to pay amount of
compensation to the applicant in that event, the interest may not be
awarded more than 6% p.a. as per the provisions of Interest Act and
as per the current bank rate of interest of the nationalized banks for
the fixed deposits.
 16) No cause of action arose to file this application against this
opponent.
17) This opponent prays the leave of the Honble Tribunal to add, amend,
alter. Modify or rescind any contents of this W.S. In the event of any
fresh facts coming to his knowledge.
18) This opponent prays the leave of this Hon. Tribunal to allow it to
contest the petition on merit on all the grounds as per provisions of
Section 170 of M.V. Act.
Therefore it is prayed that the application of the applicant may kindly
be dismissed with costs.
HUMBLY SUMBITTED.
AHMEDNAGAR
DT:

ADVOCATE OPPT.NO.2

VERIFICATION:
I, Shri. the Deputy Manager
of opponent no.2 assurance company do hereby state on solemn
affirmation that the contents of this W.S. are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge, belief and information from record and in
token thereof, I have signed below this at Nashik on

OPPT.NO.2