Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing Agnuru Jaya Ramulu Alias Jaya Ramudu, ... vs Mohammed Afzal Miyan And Anr. on 30 September, 2004

Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd., Hyd vs B.Babu, Hyd Two Others on 18 July, 2022

8. This Court finds that in the case of Agnuru Jaya Ramulu Vs. Mohammed Afzal Miyan and another (1 supra), there was a mention of the date of accident as intervening night of 12/13.07.1997, whereas the evidence of a Professor at Government Hospital, Kurnool has stated that he treated the injured on 12.07.1997 which created a doubt about the date of the accident. The scene of accident panchanama was also not produced and there was a head-on collision between the two vehicles and therefore, the Court held that when there is head-on collision between the two vehicles, the drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident are negligent. However, in the case before this Court, there was no doubt with regard to the date of the accident or the nature of the accident and it is not the case of head-on collision.
Telangana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - P M Devi - Full Document

R. Satyanarayana vs Shaik Chand And Another on 16 November, 2018

Per contra, Sri K.Ashok Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, would contend that the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the appellant as Rs.3,000/- per month in the absence of any legal evidence in respect of his claim that he used to work in Blue Fox hotel and earn Rs.4,500/- per month; the Tribunal, based on the evidence, rightly held that the motor cyclist as well as the driver of the offending lorry both contributed to the accident at 25:75 ratio, which cannot be find fault with; the Tribunal has rightly considered the disability of the appellant as 15% on the ground that during the course of treatment, he may be recovered soon as the injured was aged about 19-20 years at the time of accident; and the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,02,581/- to the appellant by deducting amounts towards contributory negligence on the part of the motor cyclist at 25% in causing the accident. He would further contend that due to triple riding on the TVS Pep Scooter, the driver of the scooter caused accident. Hence, there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the scooter. He placed reliance on Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay 4 2017 Law Suit (SC) 1093 -6- vs. Laxman Iyer and another5, Andhra Pradesh State Board Transport Corporation and another vs. K.Hemalatha and others6 and Agnuru Jaya Ramulu alias Jaya Ramudu vs. Mohammed Afzal Miyan and another7. Thus, he would contend that the appellant is not entitled for enhancement of compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Telangana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Dasari Narsimhulu 4 Others on 21 February, 2022

In support of the said contention, the learned counsel has relied on the judgments of this court in MOHD. RASHEED v. SUSHEELA AGARWAL AND ANR1 and AGNURU JAYA RAMULU v. MOHD. AFZAL MIYAN2, wherein it was held that if the vehicle is carrying more than its seating capacity and if the 1 2006 ACJ 678 2 2006 ACJ 855 4 claimants failed to produce scene of offence panchanama prepared by the police, the contributory negligence has to be taken into consideration. But in the instant case, the Tribunal did not take the contributory negligence into consideration and fasten the liability solely on the driver of the auto. He further contends that the Tribunal, having observed that the insured/owner of the auto violated the terms and conditions of the policy, ought to have exonerated the insurance company or at least it could have invoked the principle of pay and recover.
Telangana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - G S Devi - Full Document

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Gorige Bheemaiah on 21 February, 2022

In support of the said contention, the learned counsel has relied on the judgments of this court in MOHD. RASHEED v. SUSHEELA AGARWAL AND ANR1 and AGNURU JAYA RAMULU v. MOHD. AFZAL MIYAN2, wherein it was held that if the vehicle is carrying more than its seating capacity and if the claimants failed to produce scene of offence panchanama prepared 1 2006 ACJ 678 2 2006 ACJ 855 4 by the police, the contributory negligence has to be taken into consideration. But in the instant case, the Tribunal did not take the contributory negligence into consideration and fasten the liability solely on the driver of the auto. He further contends that the Tribunal, having observed that the insured/owner of the auto violated the terms and conditions of the policy, ought to have exonerated the insurance company or at least it could have invoked the principle of pay and recover.
Telangana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - G S Devi - Full Document

Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Gorige Bheemaiah on 21 February, 2022

In support of the said contention, the learned counsel has relied on the judgments of this court in MOHD. RASHEED v. SUSHEELA AGARWAL AND ANR1 and AGNURU JAYA RAMULU v. MOHD. AFZAL MIYAN2, wherein it was held that if the vehicle is carrying more than its seating capacity and if the claimants failed to produce scene of offence panchanama prepared by the police, the contributory negligence has to be taken into 1 2006 ACJ 678 2 2006 ACJ 855 4 consideration. But in the instant case, the Tribunal did not take the contributory negligence into consideration and fasten the liability solely on the driver of the auto. He further contends that the Tribunal, having observed that the insured/owner of the auto violated the terms and conditions of the policy, ought to have exonerated the insurance company or at least it could have invoked the principle of pay and recover.
Telangana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - G S Devi - Full Document

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Alle Bakkaiah on 21 February, 2022

In support of the said contention, the learned counsel has relied on the judgments of this court in MOHD. RASHEED v. SUSHEELA AGARWAL AND ANR1 and AGNURU JAYA RAMULU v. MOHD. AFZAL MIYAN2, wherein it was held that if the vehicle is carrying more than its seating capacity and if the 1 2006 ACJ 678 2 2006 ACJ 855 4 claimants failed to produce scene of offence panchanama prepared by the police, the contributory negligence has to be taken into consideration. But in the instant case, the Tribunal did not take the contributory negligence into consideration and fasten the liability solely on the driver of the auto. He further contends that the Tribunal, having observed that the insured/owner of the auto violated the terms and conditions of the policy, ought to have exonerated the insurance company or at least it could have invoked the principle of pay and recover.
Telangana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - G S Devi - Full Document

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd Rep. ... vs T.Laxman Goud And Others on 4 December, 2014

It is necessary to mention that the learned counsel for the insurance company had placed reliance on a decision in Agnuru Jaya Ramulu v. Mohammed Afzal Miyan and had contended that whenever there is a head-on collision between two vehicles, such a head-on collision takes place only when the drivers of both the vehicles are negligent and that therefore, it must be inferred that the 1st claimant had also contributed to the accident and that the accident was due to the contributory/composite negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles. Be it noted that the insurance company did not even file the sketch of the scene of accident, if any, prepared by the police in support of its contention.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - M S Murti - Full Document

Tata Aig General Insurance Company ... vs B Laxmi 5 Others on 24 June, 2022

3. Challenging the award, MACMA.No.1601 of 2017 is filed by the Insurance Company and the ground raised by the Insurance Company are that the accident occurred while both the vehicles were travelling in the opposite direction 2 PMD,J MACMA_1601 & 2246_2017 Dt.24.06.2022 and there is a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as well. Therefore, the entire liability cannot be fastened upon the Insurance Company alone when two vehicles are involved and both vehicles are travelling in the opposite direction. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company placed reliance upon the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Agnuru Jaya Ramulu vs Mohammed Afzal Miyan and another1. Therefore, he submits that the Insurance Company can be held liable only for 50% of the compensation.
Telangana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - P M Devi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next