SMT.RABAB v. NISARAHMED 5/0 ABDUL SUBAN DAFEDAR
Judgment
SMT.RABAB W/O FAROZA IRANI, AOE:31 YEARS, 0CC: HOUSE HOLD. MASUMMA D/O FAROZA IRANI, AGE: 15 YEARS, 0CC: STUDENT. TANVEER S/O FAROZA IRAN!, AGE: 11 YEARS, 0CC: STUDENT. MAHAMAD 5/0 FAROZA IRANI, AGE: 07 YEARS, 0CC: STUDENT. ALJYASAN 5/0 FAROZA IRANI, AGE: 04 YEARS, 0CC: NIL. ALL ARE RIO IRAN! COLONY, KALAGHATAGI TOLANAKA, NEAR DHARWAD. (PETITIONER/APPELLANT NO.2 TO 5 BEING MINORS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL MOThER PETITIONER/APPELLANT NO.1) .APPELLANTS (BY SRI.M.KUSUMAKAR, RAJASHREE, PRAMOD S.BHAT, ADVS.) AND
NISARAHMED 5/0 ABDUL SUBAN DAFEDAR, C/O A.N.SHETrAR, R/O KAMALESHWAR COLONY, SAIDAPUR, DHARWAD.
LN1TED JNDL\ INSURANCE (. LTD.. BY ITS MANAGER. LEACOMPLEX. NEAR CORPORATIOI’U DHAR\\AD .RESPONDENTS THIS APPEAL IS PILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M7 V ‘LLGMEU ND G\ RE L L2 2 Ci \SLL I \ ‘i L \() 32 2005 uN (HE I LE OF I L Li E’ 1( )P CA ‘L JLDL L ND ME IBLP DDL 1 DHP’ PART1A ALLO\kING HE CL\JM PE1IIION FOR COMPENS\TIcY\ ND SEEKING ENHANCEMET OF COMPENSATION THIS APPEAL COMING OX FOR ORDERS Ti TIS DA\ K. L.MAMJUXATH, J. DELIVERED TI IE FOLLOWING : 3 U D 0 XI E N T There is a delay of 71 days in filing the appeal. Before issuing notice on application of condonation of delay, we request the appellants’ counsel to address the arguments on merits out whether compensatlon awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal is on the lower .sjde or not 0CC urrecl on 1 02 LOoN (U auout 230 c[ecc;;sed was ccli) n oat) c;ai s rrcvina from.. one is lace — ) C D C D C i c 9 C ) D C ) C ) C C C — 9 C C ) C * 9 j ) — . D C ) C — Q ( ) i c D D C D C D C — D C I1 H D C j i c D C i c C — C D C ) I C i c * r o D C D C C D C D C - . D C $ — ) C C C l C I H — . . ) C C C i c ) C 1 - ) C D C < D C < 2 ) ) C C - I Q T C r C C 9 : 9 9 9 D C . 9 4 * . < ) ) C C D C ) C D C . , D C i c D C D C D C ) C 9 D C ) C D C ) C 9 C C ) C C C C C C C C C D C D C D C C C - ) C 9 D C ) C i c D C L . . . 9 D C I H ) C D C . C C ) C 9 9 > D C i c D C D C i I C H C C C C C C D C D C D C . — ) C 9 I H H ) C D C H D C ) C C C . C C C i C ) C i c D C Z C C ) ) C D C C C ) o H I Q D C : 9 ) C ) C D C — i C . 9 I H * ) C . ) ) C C C C C 9 B D C D 0 ) C D C 9 c C C C C ) C D C D C ) C D C — C C 2 a C C i c i c I H H ‘ D C C . - C C ) C . < 9 D C i c I H i C i c D C . ? ) C C . D C t r ) C I H D C i c C C . 9 . ) C i c o C ) D C + r 9 D C ) 2 C * H i c D C D C D C 9 i c D C ) ) i C C C i C H g H D C C C D C i c * r C C ) c * I H . ) C ) C C C ) C 9 — i c . H C C 9 r c • r D C D C 1 1 — c . i c i c ) C — ) C C C j D C — . 9 . . . D C 9 X C C C C D C D C D C D C , - . i c I H — . C - C D C ) C C C ) C D C D C > ) C C > i I C H r j ) . . C ) C < r I 9 H ) C D C i c ) C C C i r ) I H H ) C D C H a C C i c I H D C • 9 D C t r r i1 c D C . . ) ) C 9 ) C ) C D C 3 . 9 D C I i — c 9 . . . ) C $ D C D C I H D C — D . C 9 . 9 . 9 9 9 D C . 9 ) C . D C — D C : 9 2 D C . i c ç D C i c c . D C ) C I ‘tribunal When the ‘Iaimantb hase not placed an niuterinl to shnw the lnrnnle nf the deceased. ic lie w;is sc lung optvals In mot ing one p1 icc to notner p1 e 11w light income of the sUch persoii Cannot LW tm’rr than Rs 4.000/ per month rherefore, e do not see any merit in this appcal. s c ordinglv. appeal dismnsed Consequently. Misc. Cl.No.1O7726,201 1 c ondone the de1a’ of 71 di.ys in filing the appeal is also rejected. Si ‘I, S
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.