BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

IN THE COURT OF THE FAMILY JUDGE::ONGOLE

M.V.O.P.No.382/2011
Between:
Puli Venkateswara Reddy

Petitioner
Vs

U.Srinivasulu and others

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 petitioner is

the resident of Karavadi Village & Post and working as Lorry Driver under
Pokuri Bhanu Prakasa Rao, Valetivaripalem, Ongole (M) and earning an
amount of Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month and on the date of accident
i.e., 11-05-2011 morning the petitioner and another went to Amudalapalli of
Podili Mandal on a motor cycle to purchase paddy and at about 11 a.m., he
returned from there and while they were coming to their Village and when
they reached at Goginenivaripalem Village on Podili-Ongole road at about
11-30 a.m., the APSRTC Hire bus bearing No.AP 27 X 4659 came in
opposite direction with high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed

the motor cycle and as a result of which the petitioner and another fell down
along with motor cycle and immediately after the accident, the petitioner
was shifted to Vijaya Hospital, Ongole through 108 Ambulance and after
first aid treatment, the petitioner was shifted to Guntur and joined in Tulasi
Multi Speciality Hospital, Guntur and after seeing the serious injuries on
right leg doctors came to a conclusion that amputation is required and the
doctors amputated the petitioners right leg up to above knee and the
petitioner took treatment inpatient from 11-5-2011 to 2-6-2011 and the
petitioner incurred more than Rs.1,50,000/- expenditure for treatment,
travelling and other expenses for staying at Guntur and the petitioner is
claiming compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- 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 driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.

AP 27 X 4659 drove his vehicle with minimum speed with blowing horn,
but the rider of motor cycle i.e., the petitioner drove his vehicle in rash and
negligent manner in high speed and without blowing horn without observing
the traffic on the road dashed against the hire with APSRTC Bus and caused
the accident. The entire negligence is on the part of the rider of the motor

cycle and there is no negligence or rashness on the part of the driver of the
APSRTC Bus 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 driver of hire with APSRTC Bus bearing No.

AP 27 X 4659 was not having valid driving license and the Bus has no valid
permit and registration at the time of accident.
7.

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

any of the motor cycle are necessary parties to the claim petition. For nonjoinder of necessary parties, the claim petition is not maintainable.
8.

It is submitted that this respondent company further submits that the

driver of the Hire with APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 27 X 4659 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 Bus was roadworthy at the time of accident and was
proceeding with a valid permit both with regard to the usage & route. It is
submitted that the accident vehicle was undertaking with APSRTC and the
total control of the bus is under the authorities of APSRTC. The APSRTC is
solely liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and this respondent is not
liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
9.

It is submitted that this respondent insurance company does not admit

the age, income, and health condition of the petitioner and earning an
amount of Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month by working as Lorry driver.
However, the petitioner is 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 petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.

11.

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

Rs.16,00,000/- claimed by the petitioner in the claim application is highly

excessive, arbitrary and out of all proportions and the petitioner is 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-2

IN THE COURT OF THE FAMILY

JUDGE :: ONGOLE

M.V.O.P.No.382/2011

WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON

BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT No-2

FILED BY:Sri E.RAJASEKHAR REDDY,

ADVOCATE, ONGOLE.