High Court Karnataka High Court

Sajida Begum vs Abdul Razak on 18 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sajida Begum vs Abdul Razak on 18 March, 2008
Author: Lok Adalath
   'jj'H.aMiDABEE, W/OABDUL GANL
 'AGED 55 YEARS,

1
HIGH comm' LEGAL SERVICES COMMITFEE, BANGAIJORE
BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT  " 

IN THE HIGE COURT OF KARNATAKA AT  T»  AL 
DATED THIS THE 3.8?" DAY OI-fbVh$AR(1H'.'?.{)x')8"'~.  _  

CONCILIATORS pm:SE:1~:*:'.«. 3 '

HON'BLE MR.JUSTi(3E   
smvsauamza, G TIGAJ}I_._ m_mBER4% 

Miscgellaneous Fifsf  2005
Lok Adalat Na.5o5.12eos   
BETWEEN:   --  "  1 .V 

1. SAJIDA BEGUM, 1_$;1'D..R$b'§.Q; 
AGED 25 YEARS, _§1c:Us*:«:Hc2.':;;LI).' " 

2. MASIN FAfr§iiTMA,f:3/df3:,ATf;~»3;1oH[$§"RAFIQ,
AGEDSYQARS. V      ' -

3. MDAM FATHEMA, L>;--c>."L.A3?f§>£s2iC$HD.RAFIQ,
AGEB6 YEARS';~. * -  

4. 5fviij}.iSv}\f'i}'%x¥£,¢,:S;_O.LzK;§'E'*-%e{«D.RAFIQ,
VAGfE{) *4 YEARS.' « V

NAs.II3'5  V . 
 D/OLL TE MDRAFIQ,
' AGEE)  YE§__ARS«;'

" " 3 "<:i;A1:~gsANTa 5.2 To 5 ARE MINQRS,
 f;tHvRoU£;H THEIR NEXT FRIEND,
"MOTHER-APPELLANT NO. 1.

ALL ARE R/AT MAHABOOBNAGAR COLONY,
GU LBARGA. .. APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.V.N.MAB}:{AVA REDDY, ADVOCATE}

 bx 

 



 }5t€tet_-'u::1"t{t;e;;e4t9et:_:_}~negetiations, the matter is settled. The

   to receive and the respondent -- Insurance

A’ V1f.1ae”at§greed to pay a lump sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
only) in addition to the amount awarded by the
in fut} and fmal settiement of the claim. A joint memo is

en behalf of the parties to this effect. 9 ‘ML’;\,____

Ex)

3.’ ABDUL RAZ-AK, S/CLALISAB BEGI.

MAJOR, OCC: BUSENESS,
R[Q,1’7–20, ALLANAGAR,
BASAVAKALYAN, BIDAR DISTRICT.

2. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,.’ ‘
SANGAMESHWARNAGAR, V v ‘
‘meouen ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, __ . _ A –
GULBARGA. _ EESPQHDENTSZ’.

(BY SRLVISHWANATH s sHE’r’r”A1§;; »ADveeATe-tree #2)

MFA FELED U/s.2?3{1} 0;? My’ A_£}T_A€}AIr{ST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 2-3-2005 F’ASSEE}r1N.MVC,’I’g¥O;’*14’Z/C2004 ON THE FILE err
THE 1 ADDL.II)IS’1’RICT JUDGE 85 MA-1ARTLY ALLOWING
we CLAEM PETITIOPN FOR CoMPE:~I.szaT1’eNwV.ANDv SELEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF’ COMPEZNSATEON. , I ‘

THES APPEAL eoMm:3t’ ON €01′-2_ eoN_c:;1.L1’p:I*iewN BEFORE LOK ADALAT
AFTER BEING REFER1%EI::r_ ‘V1.33 otgeg-2 L:-.A,”9§*,DV;s~3»2o08, THE: FQLLQWING
ORDER IS PASSED, ‘ * V » e ‘

&&&& ” * :?%C?0i3§5:I;11’§35é§°Pi””‘(§1inER

The learxiiefl the appellants and the learned
counsel for — respoiirietzt wiilstlrataee Company aieng with thee”

” v /. .f ‘ .. ” « ….. .. «
rep:’eset1tat1Ve§»–a:’e t’;,3resen.t.

3. The respondent — Insurance Co1:z1pany has agresd to”
the said amount, within 8 weeks from the date of p–5fe:par§:1:tit)i1[:..'(§f
Award, failing which the said amount shall: -carry §§’3’é;i’.p.Véz,

fmm the date of default, iii] the date of de1;»$€;si§i;_TV_A’ I

4. This misceflaneous first appeal ciispése-§lT_ fif terms Of
the Joint Memo. The award of modified

accordingly. Draw up the_£:s§,?a1*d.A’a(;c{i1″di11g1y; AV 1′ ” ”