ASHOK KUMAR SINGH

Saturday, November 25, 2023

Written Statement in MACC Case

IN THE COURT OF THE LD.FAST TRACK 7^TH ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE COURT AT ALIPORE

MACC CASE No. 33 of 2013

Ansura Mallick @ Ansura Bibi

…………….Applicant

-Vs-

1. Bhim Chandra Naskar

……………..Opp.Party No.1

2.National Insurance Co.Ltd.

………………Opp.Party No.2

The Opposite Party No.2 National Insurance Co.Ltd. files their Written Statement in the above case with the statements as to following :-

1. That there is no cause of action as against this Opposite Party and this Ld.Tribunal lacks jurisdiction in entertaining the present claim application.

2. That the claim is barred by the principal of estoppels, waiver, and acquiescence.

3. That the claim is barred by limitation.

4. That the claim is bad for misjoinder of unnecessary parties and non-joinder of necessary parties inasmuch as the name of the insurer of other vehicle and details insurance policy thereof have not been disclosed in the claim application.

5. That so far this instant is concerned, this Ld.Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to try and decide the case continuance of the case in this ld. Tribunal would lead it to the failure of justice in this case.

6. That the claimant is bound to prove the statement made in the claim application independent of any defect and/or deficit on the part of the Ops.

7. That the claimant must prove the case supported by lawful papers and documents that are legally admissible.

8. That the claim petition has not been supported by any documents required under rule 329 of the W.B.M.V.Rules, 1989.

9. That the statements made in paragraphs no.1,2,3,4,5 & 6 of the application all are denied by this opposite party no.2 and the applicant shall produce voter identity card, certificate and other documents in connection with age, income etc. of the victim and the applicant is put to strict legal proof thereof.

10. That the allegations made in Paragraph 8, 9, 10, 11,12,13,14 and 23 of the claims petition is not admitted by the answering Opp.Party. All such allegations are baseless, misleading and are not specific. This opposite party no.2 denies and dispute that due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the said offending

Vehicle no.WB-20X-1874(M/C) occurred an accident on 16.12.2012 at about 7.35 hours and also denied that due to the said accident as alleged the victim injured. This opposite party also submit before your Honours court that the victim Ansura Mllick @ Ansura Bibi was walking on the middle of the road and for that reason the aforesaid incident was done so the victim is sole responsible for this accident.

11. That this Opp.Party at present unable to admit whether the interest of Bhim Chandra Naskar, Purbapra, Rghudebpur, Bishnupur, Pin- 700104 in the use of vehicle No. WB-20X-1874(M/C) was insured with this Opp.Party at the material time unless further and better particulars regarding the insurance are disclosed by the claimant, failing which it shall be presumed that this Opp.Party is not the insurer in the instant case and the name of this Opp.Party shall be expunged from the case with compensatory.

12. That this opposite party no.2 submits that if, there is found any discrepancy of the driving license and necessary particulars of the involved vehicle at the material time of accident as alleged due to such reason with no such as stand in law this opposite party no.2 has no liability to pay any compensation to the claimant.

13. That with reference to the statements made in paragraph nos.19, 20 and 21 of the said application are all denied by this opp.party no.2 and the applicant is put to strict proof of the same.

14. That the statements made in the claim application in paragraph no.22 of the said application the amount of compensation as prayed for of the said application is baseless, imaginary and unjustified and excessive and this opposite party no.2 is not liable to pay Rs.3,00,000/- or any portion or cost and interest of it.

15. This opposite party no.2 seeks protection under section 142,147 and 149 of the M.V.Act.

16. Notwithstanding the right to avoid the liability as stated in the proceeding paragraphs this opposite party no.2 is entitled to contest the case on all or any of the grounds that are available to the owner of the vehicle under any of terms of specified under section 170 of the M.V.Act, 1988 and also under the terms and conditions of the policy of Insurance.

17. That this Opposite Part no. 2 craves leave to file an additional and/or amended written statement, if necessary.

18. This opposite party no.2 submits that this opposite party has been wrongly imp leaded in this case and its name liable to be expunged.

Hence, it is prayed that for the interest of justice

And equity your Honour would be dismiss the claim

Petition in favour of the answering Opposite Party

No.2 i.e. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

VERIFICATION

I………………………………………………………………… authorized signatory of National Insurance Co. Ltd., do hereby declare that the statements made in the foregoing Written Statements are true to my information derived from the records of the case available at my office and I verify believe them to be correct.

I, sign this verification at my office on this…………..day of ………………201

Prepared in my chamber

Snehasish Sutradhar

Advocate

A F F I D A V I T

I, authorized signatory of National Insurance Co. Ltd.of aged about years by faith Hindu, by occupation- Admn.officer, office address is National Insurance Co. Ltd.,Legal Hub,8,India Exchange Place, 7^th Floor, Kolkata- 700001, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as follows :-

1. That I am the opposite party no.2 of this case and am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of this case.

This is true to my knowledge.

2. That the statements made in the paragraph numbers 1 to 19 of the present petition are true to my knowledge and belief and the rests are my humble submission before your Honour’s Court.

-------------------

Draft Prepared in my chamber Deponent

Identified by me

Snehasish Sutradhar

Advocate Advocate

Peyarabagan,laskarpur

Kolkata-700153

Title Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction

District: South 24 parganas

IN THE COURT OF THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION AT BARUIPUR

Title suit no. of 2015

ASGAR ALI GAZI

Son of Late Kasem Gazi

Residing at Joykrishnapur Piyada Para,

P.O. Bonhoogly, P.S.Sonarpur,

Kolkata- 700 103,

District- South 24 Parganas

……………. Plaintiff

-Versus-

NAUSAR ALI MOLLA

Son of Late Ibrahim Molla

Residing at Joykrishnapur Piyada Para,

P.O. Bonhoogly, P.S.Sonarpur,

Kolkata- 700 103,

District- South 24 Parganas

…………………. Defendant

SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

VALUED AT RS. 3,00,000/- ONLY

The Plaintiff states as follows:-

1. That your petitioner/plaintiff has filed the instant case for declaration and injunction against the defendants on the grounds as stated in the plaint.

2. That the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the land measuring area about 16 decimals situated at under P.S.Sonarpur, Mouza-Joykrishnapur chiyari Gram, in khatian no.480 and which are lying in dag no.2314 land measuring 7 decimal out of 12 decimal, in dag no.2312 land measuring 1 decimal out of 4 decimal, in dag no.2316 land measuring 3 decimal and in dag no.2325 land measuring 5 decimal and the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the afore said land by way of one gift deed which was executed by Rawjatannesa Bibi, plaintiff’s grandmother in the year of 2003.

3. That one Moksed Ali Piada by executing a Heba-Bill-Ewaj in favour of his wife Nesarenechha Bibi on 17.11.1954 and said Nesarenechha Bibi while possessing the same executed a Heba-Bill-Ewaj in favour of her daughter Rawjatannesa Bibi on 02.03.1970 and said Rawjatannesa Bibi transfer the schedule land by executing a registered gift deed in favour of the aforesaid plaintiff on 22.09.2003 and where the registered gift deed no. is 7477 for the year 2003, volume no. 131, page 359 to 364, book no. 1 dated 22.09.2003.

4. That after the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the schedule property which is mentioned below and he is in absolute physical possession in respect of the schedule property and has been enjoying the same by paying necessary taxes and duty in the officer of the appropriate authority.

5. That the plaintiff is residing in the property by making a dwelling house over his possessed land and is possessing, enjoying and occupying the said land, since 22-09-2003.

6. That the defendant has got no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land.

7. That the defendant is the son-in law of Rawjatannesa Bibi and he also get some land from his mother-in law by a sale deed but your defendant has no right title over the schedule property and he has no connection of the schedule property by any manners but his intention was bad because he always try to grab the plaintiff’s property by illegal way.

8. That at the time of demarcating the land by erecting boundary wall the defendant raise objection and restrained your plaintiff dangerously with filthy language whereas the defendant has no locus stand over the schedule property.

9. That after your plaintiff filed a Title Suit being no. 4 of 2006 before the 2^nd Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Baruipur, for partition on his 07 decimal lands because that time the defendant arose a dispute on 07 decimal of land. After taking evidences and peruse the documents the Ld. Court passed the order “that the suit be and same is hereby decreed on contest against the defendant with cost in preliminary form. The plaintiff get a decree of partition in preliminary form in respect of his 07 decimals of land in suit plot no. 2314 out of 12 decimal …, And the parties are hereby directed to make amicable partition of the suit property in terms of their respective share within two months from the date of order failing which appropriate application for making the decree final can be made.

10. That after when your plaintiff again try to demarcating the land by erecting boundary wall as per the Ld. Court order the defendant and his associate was came to the spot with bamboo stick for restrained your plaintiff to do their work and the defendant also threatened to murder to your plaintiff and his family members.

11. That the defendant has bad intention and for that reason he made one forge unregistered sale deed where he reflected that he is the owner of 38.5 decimal land but it is very whimsical because his mother-in-law Rawjatannesa Bibi in her turn she executed lot of deed in the year 1984,1998 and 2003 and in every deed she put her left thumb impression but the sale deed which has been shown by the defendant is fully different because where the Rawjatannesa Bibi put her signature on the said sale deed i.e. quit impossible.

12. That plaintiff being a peace loving citizen asked the defendant for the reason behind of his such an unwanted behavior, then the truth come out, the defendant revealed that he wanted to occupy the hole land including the portion of the plaintiff’s land but when the Rawjatannesa Bibi transfer the scheduled land i.e.16 decimal in favour of your plaintiff and for that reason the defendant becomes angry and now he will take revenge.

13. The plaintiff tried to settle up the dispute and made various request to the defendant to stop creating disturbance to the free egress and ingress of the plaintiff in his own scheduled property and not to restrained him for construct the boundary wall but in every time the defendant refuse your plaintiff request with filthy language and still now he restrained your plaintiff to enter his own property by illegal way and day by day his wrongful act has increase.

14. That on 06.05. 2015 when plaintiff tried to enter his own property i.e. scheduled land the defendant obstruct him illegally whereas your defendant has no right, title and interest over the suit property because he want to occupy and grab the suit property illegally and his status is like a tress passer.

15. That after the plaintiff informs the matter to the local P.S. Sonarpur by a written complaint and the said complaint duly received by the said P.S. dated 06.05.2015, but the defendant did not bother to stop his wrongful act whereas day by day his wrongful act is going to be increased.

16. That the plaintiff peaceful possession is being threatened with dispossession and as such in order to permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing the plaintiff peaceful possession and dispossession forcibly from the said schedule land/ suit property and further restraining the defendant to stop creating disturbance to the free egress and ingress of the plaintiff in his own scheduled property and not to restrained him for construct the boundary wall over the scheduled property should be passed till disposal of the suit.

17. That the defendant by taking law in his hand is trying to oust the plaintiff from the suit property and are constantly threatening the plaintiff with dire consequences.

18. That the plaintiff is a rustic poor citizen and if he is deprived of his possession of the piece and parcel of land as described in schedule, he will suffer irreparable loss and injury and will be seriously prejudiced.

19. That the aforesaid facts done by the defendant and also continuing their illegal act is the reason to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. And that also in reason your plaintiff has declared that he is the absolute owner of the suit property i.e. land measuring area about 16 decimals situated at under P.S. Sonarpur, Mouza - Joykrishnapur chiyari Gram, in khatian no. 480 and which are lying in dag no.2314 land measuring 7 decimal out of 12 decimal, in dag no.2312 land measuring 1 decimal out of 4 decimal, in dag no.2316 land measuring 3 decimal and in dag no.2325 land measuring 5 decimal, District- South 24 Parganas.

20. That the cause of action arose on 6 . 5 .2015 and the same is continuing at the suit property i.e. land measuring area about 16 decimals situated at under P.S.Sonarpur, Mouza - Joykrishnapur chiyari Gram, in khatian no.480 and which are lying in dag no.2314 land measuring 7 decimal out of 12 decimal, in dag no.2312 land measuring 1 decimal out of 4 decimal, in dag no.2316 land measuring 3 decimal and in dag no.2325 land measuring 5 decimal, District- South 24 Parganas.

21. That the suit is valued of Rs. 3,00,000/- for declaration and permanent injunction and advolram court fees has been paid there on.

The Plaintiff prays for:

i) A decree for declaration that the plaintiff is an absolute owner of land i.e. land measuring area about 16 decimals situated at under P.S. Sonarpur, Mouza-Joykrishnapur, chiyari Gram, in khatian no.480 and which are lying in dag no. 2314 land measuring 7 decimal out of 12 decimal, in dag no. 2312 land measuring 1 decimal out of 4 decimal, in dag no. 2316 land measuring 3 decimal and in dag no. 2325 land measuring 5 decimal, District- South 24 Parganas.

ii) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and their man agent from disturbing and/or encroach illegally to the plaintiff’s own land and from disturbing the peaceful possession of the suit property, in any manner whatsoever.

iii) Restraining the defendant from creating disturbance to the free egress and ingress of the plaintiff in his scheduled land.

iv) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from changing the nature and character of the suit property in any manner whatsoever.

v) Costs

vi) Any other legal or equitable relief or reliefs the Plaintiff is entitled to under law and equity.

SCHEDULE

ALL THAT piece and parcel of land measuring area about 16 decimals situated at under P.S. Sonarpur, Mouza - Joykrishnapur chiyari Gram, in khatian no.480 and which are lying in dag no. 2314 land measuring 7 decimal out of 12 decimal, in dag no. 2312 land measuring 1 decimal out of 4 decimal, in dag no. 2316 land measuring 3 decimal and in dag no. 2325 land measuring 5 decimal, District- South 24 Parganas.

Documents relied upon by the plaintiff

1. Xerox copy of gift deed dated 22.09.2003

2. Xerox copy of tax receipts.

3. Xerox copy of judgment and order dated 30.06.2007.

4. Xerox copy complaint letter dated

VERIFICATION

I, Asgar Ali Gazi, the plaintiff here in do hereby declare and state that the statements contained in paragraphs 1 to 21 above are true to the best of my knowledge and rest are my humble submission before the Ld. Court and I sign this verification on at advocate chamber.

AFFIDAVIT

I, Asgar Ali Gazi son of late Kasem Gazi, aged about 40 years, by faith- Muslim, by occupation- business, residing at Joykrishnapur Piyada Para, P.O. Bonhoogly, P.S.Sonarpur, Kolkata- 700 103, District- South 24 Parganas, , do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as follows:-

1. That I am the plaintiff in the instant suit and as such am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case.

This is true to my knowledge.

2. That the statements made in the foregoing paragraphs 1 to 21 above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and the rest thereof are my humble submission before this learned Court.

-----------------------------

DEPONENT

Readover, explained in Bengali

and Identified by me.

Advocate

Prepared in my Chamber,

Advocate.

Date : ________________2015.

Place : Baruipur Civil Court.