RW No: 1

Duly sworn on 21-09-2022

Examination in Chief: by Respondent No. 2 Advocate:

I hereby produced my affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. Whatever stated therein is true aND correct with the best of my knowledge aND it bears my signature. I have produced certain documents before the court if you shown those document I can identified. Witness identified the authorization letter as Ex. R-1, certified copy of the policy as Ex. R-2.

Cross Examination: by Petitioner Advocate:

On behalf of our company some people are appointed for get documents but, not investigated. It is false to suggest that, in the instant case behalf our company one officer appointed for investigation while investigation the driver of Truck had DL as on the date of accident. It is false to suggest that, even though the driver of the Truck have valid aND effective DL as on the date of incident even then I am deposing falsely. It is false to suggest that, in our WS we have not specifically pleaded the driver was not holding valid DL as on the date of accident.

2. It is false to suggest that, there is no violation of the policy conditions. I have not visited the place of incident. It is false to suggest that, in para No. 4 of my affidavit I have deposed falsely. It is true to suggest that, the charge sheet filed against driver of the Truck bearing No. KA-22/B-9587. It is false to suggest that, the accident was occurred due to raSh. negligent act of the driver of the Truck therefore, the police filed charge sheet against driver of the Truck. It is true to suggest that, I have not signed on objection statement filed on behalf of the Respondent company. It is false to suggest that, I have no knowledge about facts of this case in order to escape from liable upon our company I have filed false affidavit aND deposing falsely.

Cross Examination: by Respondent No. 1 Advocate:

Before filing chief affidavit before the Court I have gone through the entire case paper pertaining to this case. It is true to suggest that, the charge sheet against driver of the Truck for the offence punishable U/s. 279, 304A IPC aND 184 of MV Act.

2. It is false to suggest that, the RTO never issue specific endorsement that heavy transport. It is true to suggest that, one Mallikarjun Tukaram Parit he was initially issued LMV license on 14-02-2000. It is true to suggest that, on perusal of the Ex. P-11 one Mallikarjun Tukaram Parit has been issued on that day TRANS

license on 27-08-2001. Witness volunteers that as on the date as on 27-08-2001 he was holding LMV license.

3. It is false to suggest that, in Ex. P-11 LMV(TR) is not mentioned. It is false to suggest that, as per Ex. P-11 Sri. Mallikarjun Tukaram Parit holding DL in respect of Driving of heavy goods vehicles. It is false to suggest that, in order to escape from liability I am deposing falsely that the driver of the Truck was not holding valid DL as on the date of accident.

Re-Examination: NIL

(Dictated to the typist in the open court as per the statement of witness)

R. O. F. C

V Addl. Dist. & Session Judge, Belagavi.

PS: Copyright: eCourtsIndia.com. AI-enhanced; accuracy may vary.

References: Case Number - M.V.C./1204/2018 | Case Type - M.V.C. | CNR Number - KABG010062272018 | Complex Name - Prl. District AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI | Court Name - 882-sri. H S MANJUNATHA-V ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI | Filing Date - 06-07-2018 | Judge Name - 882-V Addl District And Sessions Judge Belagavi | List Date - 2025-07-03 | Order Date - 2022-09-21 | Order Number - 3 | Petitioner Advocates - D.D.Patil | Petitioner Parties - Roopa Sukumar Jinagond Age 28 Yrs R/O B.C.No.124, Bogarves Circle, Belagavi Advocate - D.D.Patil | Respondent Parties - Mallikarjun Kadayya Pujar Age Major R/O H.No.456, Bellad Bagewadi, Tq Hukkeri Dt Belagavi.2) Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd R/By The Divsional Manager, Nehru Nagar, Belagavi | Status - Arguments