PRADEEP @ DILIP Vs. SUNIL AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

(2.) The third respondent/United India Insurance Company has filed the counter statement and resisted the claim. The respondent had denied that the accident had been caused by the rash driving of the driver of the Jeep. It was submitted that the driver of the jeep did not have a valid driving licence. The averments in the claim regarding age, income, occupation, nature of injuries and disability was not admitted.

(3.) The 6th respondent/National Insurance Company has filed counter statement and refuted the claim. It was admitted fact that the driver of the jeep had driven it in a rash and negligent manner and hit behind the lorry and as such, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. The respondent further denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the claimant.