BEFORE
THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
(court)
PLACE.
MCOP / .
Name of the petitioner ----- Petitioner.
Vs
Name of the respondent ----- 2nd
respondent
COUNTER
STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT ABOVE NAMED
1.This
petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts
and hence has to be dismissed in limine.
2.The
petitioners are put to strict proof that they are the only legal heirs of the
deceased.
3.The
allegations made in column 23 para 2 that on 24/6/18 at about 9.15 hrs the
deceased was travelling as a passenger in a private bus bearing regn.no.-----belonging to the 1st respondent, it was halted at ----- old bus stand, near common toilet, at that time the deceased was getting down
from the above said bus, the driver of
the above bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner with sudden speed
and applied sudden break, result of which the deceased was fallen down from the
bus and fell down on the road and sustained grievous head injury and the
deceased was brought to government hospital, ------ and then referred to ----- government hospital as inpatient but he died during the treatment
was hereby denied as false and incorrect.
Actually the driver of the
1st respondent was proceeding to ---- bus stand from ---- via ----- road, and when the bus entered in the old bus stand and
is slowly moving to the counter, and when the bus was moving near the public
toilet there was a ditch in the bus stand, and when he was going inside the bus
stand, in reverse, the deceased attempted to get down from the bus without
hearing the conductor whistle to move the bus reverse, at that time the rear
wheel of the bus fell down in a ditch on the way nearby public toilet, and the deceased who was
standing on the steps unfortunately fell down from the bus and sustained injuries
and later succumbed to the injuries, for which this 2nd respondent
is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. If the deceased would have
been alert when the bus was going in reverse, the accident might not have
occurred.
4.The
petitioners are put to strict proof of the avertments made in column 3,4,5,6
that the deceased was aged 46 years at the time of accident occupied as coolie and there by earned Rs.15,000/-
pm with necessary documents and certificates.
6.Various
amount claimed under column 21 part I & II are highly excessive exaggerated
and boosted for the purpose of the claim petition. Claiming of Rs.30,00,000/- is too high.
8.The
petitioners are not entitled to claim interest at the rate of 12% per annum. He
is not entitled to claim interest more than 6% per annum.
9.
This 2nd respondent reserves their right to file additional counter
if any later on.
It is therefore prayed
that this hon’ble court may be pleased to dismiss the petition with the cost of
the respondent and thus render justice.
Advocate for 2nd respondent. 2nd respondent.
Verification
I, the 2nd respondent herein do hereby declare that the
above said facts are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I signed
this
the day of at .
2nd
respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before
the motor accidents
Claims
tribunal,
Court,
Place.
Place.
.
MCOP / .
Name of the respondent
– 2nd respondent.
– 2nd respondent.
--------------------------------
Counter
statement
filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent
filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent
above named.
-------------------------------
Name of the petitioner
- petitioners.
- petitioners.
By
NAME OF THE ADVOCATE,
ADVOCATE,
Place.
Posts
0 Comments