1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRINUNAL CUM

M.V.OP.NO. 69 OF 2018
Between:-
S.Jyothi and 4 others … Petitioner

And:-
Arasambattu Suresh and others … Respondents

WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE

1. The petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts.

2. This respondent does not admit any of the allegations made in

the petition except those that are specifically admitted herein and the

petitioners are put to strict proof of the rest of the allegations which

are not so admitted herein.

3. The respondent does not admit the allegations in Col No.3, 4,

6, 25 and 26 of the petition with regard to the age, occupation, income

of the petitioner etc., and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the

same.

4. The allegations made in Page 5 in Col.No.26 of the Petition are

false and are hereby denied.

It is true to say that this respondent is owner of the TATA ACE Vehicle

No. AP03-TC-5767 and 3rd respondent is the Insurer of the 1st

respondent’s vehicle. The allegation leveled in Para-26 (c) that on

08/03/2016 at about 1.30 P.M the deceased J.Bhanuprakash along with

R.Nagaraju Proceeded on Motor Cycle bearing No.TN-01-AL-1145

belongs to the deceased J.BhanuPrakash, which was driven by

J.Bhanuprakash to attend their duties at Amaraja factory, while so on

the way on Chittoor –Palamaner main road in front of Amararaja

factory main gate near Mordanapalle village, Yadamari Mandal, while

they completely crossed the road to enter into factory for attending

duty at the time the 2 nd respondent herein driver of TATA ACE Vehicle

No. AP03-TC-5767 at that juncture came from Palamaner side to

proceed towards Chittoor side in a rash and negligent manner at a high

speed and lost control over the said TATA ACE Vehicle bearing

No.AP03-TC-5767 and towards road side margin hit against the motor

cycle which of driven by the deceased J,Bhanu Prakash, in the said

impact the deceased J.Bhanu Prakash and R.Nagaraj the pillion rider

fell from the said motor cycle and sustained multiple bleeding injuries

and internal injuries on their body and they were shifted to

Government Hospital Chittoor through Amaraja Ambulance and

admitted for treatment. It is true to say that the 2 nd respondent driver

TATA ACE Vehicle bearing No.AP03-TC-5767 came from Palamaner side

towards Chittoor side who is well experienced driver, at juncture the

said driver 2nd respondent drove the said TATA ACE Vehicle bearing

No.AP03-TC-5767 in a normal speed and the deceased J.Bhanu Prakash

while crossing the road he did not observe the ongoing way on the

road, the vehicles which were on the way the deceased J.Bhanu

Prakash suddenly crossed without taking any precautious whether he

will be able to pass his motorcycle without any disturbance to the other

vehicles which are passing on the Palamaner-Chittoor high way road

and the 2nd respondent TATA ACE Vehicle bearing No.AP03-TC-5767

steered the said vehicle to towards left side Palamaner – Chittoor

road to avoid massive accident seeing the deceased J.Bhanu Prakash

on middle of road on his motorcycle and the said deceased J.Bhanu

Prakash was not able to adjudge the situation lost control of the

motorcycle fell down in front of the TATA ACE Vehicle bearing No.AP03-

TC-5767, though the 2nd respondent applied breaks to TATA ACE

Vehicle bearing No.AP03-TC-5767, to avoid collusion with the deceased

motorcycle, without the said TATA ACE Vehicle bearing No.AP03-TC-

5767 in slow motion hit the deceased J.Bhanu Prakash motor cycle,

thus the 2nd respondent is in no faulty and the accident occurred totally

due to the negligence of the deceased J.Bhanu Prakash without

observing the ongoing vehicles on the way road. Thus the deceased

J.Bhanu Prakash fell in violation of the traffic rules and proceeded in a

two wheeler. Since the both the vehicles are collided with each other,

the owner and insurer of the above said two wheeler also just and

necessary party to the above petition. The 2nd respondent is having

valid driving license to drive the TATA ACE Vehicle bearing

No.AP03-TC-5767.

5. This respondent submits that the allegations leveled against the

2nd respondent driver TATA ACE Vehicle bearing No.AP03-TC-5767, as

he had driven the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner is not

true and correct that the deceased J.Bhanu Prakash rider of the two

wheeler without following opposite vehicle and drove the same rash

and negligent manner and made responsible for the above said

accident.

6. The other allegations made in Page 5 of the petition that the

deceased J.Bhanu Prakash sustained grevious injuries to his left high

and wound over ear losule and other multiple and bleeding injuries

and he incurred an expenditure of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical ,

attendant charges and transport charges are all not true and correct

and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.

7. It is not true to say that the deceased J.Bhanu Prakash was living

by doing job in Amaraja factory and earning Rs.8,000/- p.m. while at

the time of the accident the same are coined and concocted to claim

huge compensation.
 4

8. The deceased J.Bhanu Prakash is even now is quite hale and

healthy and attending his normal duties and in view of the same and

also in the absence of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle of the

2nd respondent driver at the material point of time, the claim of the

petitioners for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- is highly excessive, imaginary

and without any basis.

9. This respondent submits that the accident was occurred on

08.03.2016 after four monthly the deceased J.Bhanu Prakash had

committed suicide with his family disputes and his personal problems

in his life not due to injuries sustained in the above accident and the

deceased J.Bhanu Prakash had be recovered well and there was no

difficult to him to do his job.

10. This respondent submits that the Petitioners are entitled to

claim only medical expenditure incurred while undergoing treatment of

deceased J.Bhanu Prakash and they are entitled to claim compensation

on other heads, because the cause of death of deceased J.Bhanu

Prakash did not arise from the accident, only due to his personal

problems the deceased J.Bhanu Prakash had committed suicide.

11. This respondent submits that Petitioners 2 and 4 are major and

they were not depending upon the deceased J.Bhanu Prakash income

and as well as the 4th petitioner is married lady is also doing depending

upon the deceased J.Bhanu Prakash. The petitioners had not narrated

in the claim petition how the Petitioners 3 to 5 are depending upon the

deceased J.Bhanu Prakash. The Petitioners 1 and 2 are also not totally

depending upon the income of the deceased J.Bhanu Prakash, the

petitioners 3 and 4 are alive to look after the welfare of the Petitioners

1 and 2 herein,

9. This respondent reserves his right to file Addl. Written Statement

if any at a later stage.

10. This respondent has validly insured his vehicle with the 3 rd

respondent Insurance company and in view of the contract of

insurance between this respondent and 3 rd respondent under policy if

the petitioners is entitled for any compensation the same is liable to

pay by the 3rd respondent alone and not by this respondent.

11. It is therefore prayed that this Hon`ble court may be pleased to

Advocate for the 1st Respondent 1 stRespondent

1st Respondent