Written Statement of Rajat Gupta

IN THE COURT OF RAJEEV BANSAL, HON’BLE JUDGE, MACT,
SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
MACT NO.591/17
IN THE MATTER OF:
KANHAIYA LAL …….PETITIONER
VERSUS
RAJAT GUPTA & ANR. …....RESPONDENTS
WRITTEN STATEMET/REPLY ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT,

RAJAT GUPTA
Most Respectfully Showeth:
1. That the respondent is a law abiding citizen of India.

2. That the answering respondent is driver of the vehicle no. –DL4SCJ9693 which
allegedly met with an accident on 01.06.2017, at 6:35 PM near Aiims Hospital,
Gate No.2.
3. That the answering respondent belongs to a very respectable family. He has never
indulged in any criminal activities and commands the respect and admiration of
the society.
4. That the answer respondent has antecedents of having no past criminal record
and is a young man of 19 years and had taken precautionary measures to avoid the
accident. He is a student and at the time of driving the vehicle possessed all the
relevant legal documents pertaining to the vehicle.
5. That the vehicle was driven by the answering respondent within permissible limit
and carefully obeying all the traffic rules and regulations.
6. That the answering respondent has all relevant documents pertaining to the
vehicle in question and that the respondent cooperated with the investigation.
7. That the petitioner is responsible for the alleged accident as it was negligence on
his part which resulted in the accident as it is apparent from the facts mentioned
in DAR that the deceased jumped the railing and did not use zebra crossing.
8. That it is pertinent here to mention that according to the DAR (Detailed Accidental
Report), the petitioner was suffering from serious diseases such as asthma, Hernia
and TB and can be one of the aggravating factors resulting in the death of the
deceased.
9. That deceased after deboarding the bus did not see left-right side of the road,
being negligent tried to jump the railing and cross the road. It is apparent from the
victim Impact Report that the alleged accident took place at the center of the road.
That the deceased failed to take reasonable care while trying to cross the road.
According to the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, Rule 22
“Traffic Sign and Traffic Police.—A driver of a motor vehicle and every other
person using the road shall obey:— (a) every direction given, whether by signal or
otherwise, by a police officer or any authorised person for the time being in-
charge of the regulation of traffic;
(b) any direction applicable to him and indicated on or by notice traffic sign or
signal fixed or operated by an authority, competent to do so;
(c) any direction indicated by automatic signalling devices fixed at road
intersections.”
In the Instant case, the fact that the deceased did not follow the traffic rules and
regulations and tried to cross road by jumping the railing and without using Zebra
crossing is clear contravention of Rules of Road Regulations, 1989 and it is
apparent that deceased was negligent and did not take reasonable care while
crossing the road which led to the alleged accident.
10. That in the case of Surender Kumar Arora & Anr. Vs. Dr. Manoj Bisla &
Ors.(2012) 4 SCC passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been held that it is
for the claimant to prove negligence on the part of the offending vehicle and if the
claimant fails to prove that the respondent is negligent, the claim petition is not
maintainable. In the instant case, the deceased was negligent while crossing the
road and it is negligence on the part of the deceased which resulted in the alleged
accident.
11. That in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Dinesh Tiwari & Ors. MAC.
APP.291/2006 decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High court observed that “If two
vehicles are involved in an accident, the driver of one of them may be negligent or
both of them may be negligent. Similarly, in a case of a pedestrian, he himself may
be solely responsible or may have contributed to the accident along with the
driver of the offending vehicle.
Of late, some of the Claims Tribunal do not discuss the issue of negligence at all
and hold the driver of the offending vehicle liable simply on account of registration
of a criminal case against him. The registration of a criminal case subject to some
exception may be taken as sufficient proof of involvement of vehicle in the
accident but not as a proof of negligence of the driver.” In the instant case it is
sheer negligence on the part of the deceased which resulted in the alleged
accident.
12. That the alleged accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the
deceased as he was crossing the road in a negligent manner without following the
traffic rules and regulations. It exhibits his carelessness towards himself as well as
posing danger to the lives of others. The answering respondent was driving the
vehicle at the centre of the road; the accident took place at the centre of the road.
The deceased did not use zebra crossing, instead jumped the railing and tried to
cross the road and met with alleged accident.
In the case of Ajay Kumar V. Deepak Kumar, MAC. APP. 23/2017 delivered on
27 July, 2017 , the Hon’ble Delhi High Court referring to the decision of Karnataka
High court and quoting the observation as relevant for establishing the case of
answering respondent. The Court Observed as follows:
“The appellant in this case was a pedestrian who virtually walked into the path of
the vehicle and got injured. There is a wrong notion which prevails that
pedestrians have the birth-right to wander around the stroll on the roads
according to their whims and fancies and that even if they make every effort to get
run over, that the vehicle drivers are supposed to still try and save them. It has
been pointed out in this judgment that the rules of the road require pedestrians to
avoid strolling on to the road and that the roads can be crossed only at designated
places. A breach of these rules immediately holds the pedestrian liable for
negligence and if it is demonstrated that the injury of death occurred due to the
negligence of the pedestrian, the driver of the vehicle, the owner and the insurer
would then be entitled to disclaim their liability. This is an aspect of the law that
has been grossly overlooked and which requires to be very clearly restated and
specifically brought to the notice of the public. The present accident took place on
one of the busy roads in the city of Bangalore and the evidence indicates that
people were indiscriminately walking about on the road virtually between the
vehicles that were moving regardless of any concern for safety. Where a
pedestrian demonstrates suicidal tendencies by behaving in this manner, he will
be precluded from then holding others liable if he gets injured or killed and it is
very necessary that this message goes out loud and clear. In the present instance
where the driver of the vehicle and the injured appellant are both demonstrated to
have been negligent, the first one for the manner in which the truck was being
driven and the second one for having crossed the road at a point where he should
not have done, this Court has had to evaluate the degrees of negligence for
purposes of deciding whether the injured should be entitled to compensation and
if so, how much. The degree of negligence on the part of the pedestrian having
been of a relatively lower order, the Court has limited the compensation payable
to the extent of GO of the amount computed. In cases of proven negligence
however, the compensation awarded could be much lower or even nothing at all."
13. That it is submitted that the answering respondent is not even responsible
partially for the alleged accident. The fact that respondent cooperated with the
investigation and helped the deceased to be taken to the hospital , some public
also gathered at the spot and helped the deceased and the deceased got the best
treatment possible , initially at Jai Prakash Narayan Trauma Centre and was
shifted to AIIMS Medical on 02.06.2017. The fact that the answering respondent
took every possible effort to mitigate the effects of the alleged accident and the
fact that the victim/deceased died after 10 days of the alleged accident is
important aspect which needs to be considered in the interest of justice.
PRAYER:
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed to this Hon’ble court that the Claim petition be
kindly dismissed of the claimant in the interest of Justice.
Saket, New Delhi
Dated Respondent
Through
Advocate
Verification:
Verified at New Delhi on this 12th October, 2017, that the contents
Of the above application are true and correct to my knowledge and
Belief.
IN THE COURT OF RAJEEV BANSAL, HON’BLE JUDGE, MACT,
SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
MACT NO.591/17
IN THE MATTER OF:
KANHAIYA LAL …….PETITIONER
VERSUS
RAJAT GUPTA & ANR. …....RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Rajat Gupta S/o – Shri Anoop Gupta R/o H.No.-WZ813A, Narayana village, New Delhi, do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
1. That I am the Respondent No.1 in the above noted matter and I am fully conversant
with the facts and circumstances of the matter.
2. That the accompanying written statement under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has
been drafted by my counsel under my instruction and the contents therein are true
and correct to my knowledge
DEPONENT
Verification:
Verified at New Delhi on this 12th October, 2017, that the contents of the above application
are true and correct to my knowledge and Belief.
DEPONENT

Written Statement of Rajat Gupta

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Written Statement of Rajat Gupta

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Written Statement of Rajat Gupta

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF RAJEEV BANSAL, HON’BLE JUDGE, MACT,

SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

KANHAIYA LAL …….PETITIONER

RAJAT GUPTA & ANR. …....RESPONDENTS

WRITTEN STATEMET/REPLY ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT,

Most Respectfully Showeth:

1. That the respondent is a law abiding citizen of India.

Saket, New Delhi

Of the above application are true and correct to my knowledge and

SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

KANHAIYA LAL …….PETITIONER

RAJAT GUPTA & ANR. …....RESPONDENTS

are true and correct to my knowledge and Belief.

You might also like