Sri.Pyare Jan vs Sri.Hanumantha.N.M on 19 February, 2021
1. 2003 ACJ 105 KAR, in between Ramakrishna Reddy Vs
Manager, H.T.Ltd., and another
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (1.74 seconds)Smt. Sunitha vs Balachandra on 6 September, 2022
6. Further submitted that in Ex.P.12-IMV
Report the front left side indicator and
head light mask was got damaged. Therefore, it
proves that the front portion of the offending motor
bike hit the motor bike of the deceased from behind
and this proves the probability that the Motor Bike
No.KA-16/Y-8077 had dashed the motor bike of the
deceased. Therefore, submitted that this proves the
fact that the Motor Bike No.KA-16/Y-8077 was
involved in the accident. Further submitted that in the
absence of any plea to be taken before the Tribunal,
10
no new grounds are allowed to urge in the appeal for
the first time and he places reliance on the decision of
the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Ramakrishna Reddy Vs, The Manager, Purchase,
HMT Limited, Bangalore and Another reported in
ILR 2002 KAR 1905. Further submitted that when
the Insurance Company for the first time in the appeal
urging that the fraud is played while filing the claim
petition, but that ought to have been taken plea in the
written statement as well as by leading evidence and
to establish, but that is not done by the Insurance
Company. Therefore, submitted that in the appeal the
said contention is only for the sake of contention
without having any proof. Therefore, submitted that
the appeal filed by the Insurance Company may be
dismissed.
Timal S/O Sh. Surat vs Subhash Chand S/O Sh. Rameshwar Dutt on 14 January, 2013
29. This reply was therefore "play it safe" reply. Attitude of
insurers to "deny everything await the award syndrome" was
deprecated by Karnataka High Court in Ramakrishana Reddy
Vs. Manager, HMT Ltd., 2003 ACJ 105, as under :
Delhi vs Lakhbir Singh S/O Sh. Sampuran Singh on 21 January, 2013
32. Attitude of insurers to "deny everything await the
award syndrome" was deprecated by Karnataka High Court in
Ramakrishana Reddy Vs. Manager, HMT Ltd., 2003 ACJ 105, as
under :
Delhi vs Shri Kanhaiya Lal S/O Sh. Lakhan Singh on 18 February, 2013
was deprecated by Karnataka High Court in Ramakrishana Reddy
Vs. Manager, HMT Ltd., 2003 ACJ 105, as under :
Shanti W/O Sh. Daya Ram vs Shyam Dutt Pant S/O Sh. Narpati Pant on 30 August, 2013
28. Ramakrishana Reddy Vs. Manager, HMT Ltd., 2003 ACJ
105, it was observed as under :
Delhi vs Sh. Nar Singh S/O Sh. Gopi Ram on 28 August, 2012
However, it is admitted that
the offending vehicle was insured on the date of accident. It is denied
that the petitioners are entitled to any compensation.
5 This reply was therefore "play it safe" reply. Attitude of
insurers to "deny everything await the award syndrome" was
deprecated by Karnataka High Court in Ramakrishana Reddy Vs.
Manager, HMT Ltd., 2003 ACJ 105, as under :
Sh. Heera Singh vs Sh. Gautam Yadav on 10 December, 2012
18. This reply was therefore "play it safe" reply. Attitude of
insurers to "deny everything await the award syndrome" was
deprecated by Karnataka High Court in Ramakrishana Reddy
Vs. Manager, HMT Ltd., 2003 ACJ 105, as under :
Dil Bagh Singh Sh. Heera Singh vs Sh. Ram Avtar S/O Sh. Maliya Singh on 17 December, 2012
34. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Ramakrishana Reddy v.
Manager, HMT Ltd., 2003 ACJ 105 had denounced tendency of
MACT No. 400/08 Dilbagh Singh Vs. Ram Avtar 18 of 38
insurance companies to take each and every defence without
bothering to verify the same before filing their written
statement. Such attitude of Insurance Companies was termed as
"play it safe" "deny everything await the award".
Mallappa Kallappa Domawadi vs Smt.Niramala W/O Baburao Patil on 16 July, 2019
13. The division bench of this Court in the matter of
RAMAKRISHNA REDDY VS. THE MANAGER, PURCHASE,
HMT LIMITED, BANGALORE AND ANOTHER reported in ILR
2002 KAR 1905 has held that no new plea can be permitted to
be raised in an appeal particularly by Insurance Company in
support of its defence or to the effect that risk was not covered
under the policy, inasmuch as opportunity to the claimant to
reply to the said contention would be lost. Thus, the statement
of objections filed by the Insurance Company should disclose all
such defence, plea or contentions it intends to raise to stave off
its claim. It has been held: