R.C.Rev.No.248 of 2019; R.C.Rev.No.86 of 2022 The High Court of Kerala dealt with two Rent Control Revision petitions arising from a judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge‑V), Kozhikode, in R.C.A. No. 207 of 2016, and related proceedings under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The landlord sought eviction under Section 11(3) on bona fide need to start an imported and modular furniture business from the petition schedule premises. The tenant resisted, contending that the shed-like premises in an industrial locality was unsuitable for a showroom, and highlighted limitations on the landlord’s capacity to run such a business; he also invoked the second proviso to Section 11(3) and a prior agreement in 2008. The Rent Control Court recorded the landlord’s bona fide need but denied eviction due to the second proviso, while the Appellate Authority dismissed both the appeal and the cross‑objection. The High Court, through a Division Bench, held that the landlord’s need was bona fide and not a mere pretext, reversed the second proviso finding, and allowed eviction. It stressed that bona fide need is evaluated on a real, sincere need, not mere whim, and that the tenant bears the burden to prove the second proviso’s two limbs. Six months’ time to vacate was granted with conditions and arrears to be paid.
Mathew Joseph’s writ petition challenges Ext.P15, a charge memo issued by the Puduppadi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (the Society), on grounds that it was illegal, issued beyond competence, and aimed at harassment. The petitioner explains that while employed, he took long leave to join his family in Australia, and an accident prevented returning within the allowed time. This led to disciplinary action; the Joint Registrar set aside the initial proceedings (Ext.P7), and the Arbitration Court via Ext.P14 ordered remand for fresh action. The petitioner contends that the entire prior disciplinary action was invalid, as outlined in Ext.P14, and thus Ext.P15 was issued unlawfully, while he remained suspended without benefits from 13.04.2015. The respondent bank argues that the Arbitration Court’s remand permits fresh action, and that automatic reinstatement or payment of benefits cannot follow; Ext.P15 is issued within the liberty reserved by the Arbitration Court. The Court recognizes two issues: (i) whether Ext.P15 should stand and reinstatement is warranted, and (ii) arrears from 03.11.2014. However, the Court holds that the prior action was invalid and that fresh action is permissible; it directs the Society to hear the petitioner and decide arrears, ensure subsistence allowance, and complete the disciplinary process within four months, with no automatic reinstatement mandated.
The petitioners, who had obtained a Building Permit and a Development Permit for construction on their land, challenged Ext.P5 Stop Memo and Ext.P6 demand notice issued by the District Geologist for alleged illegal excavation of granite during construction work, including removal of granite and ordinary earth from the site. Ext.P5 required the petitioners to show cause within seven days but did not specify the quantum of granite allegedly excavated, preventing an effective response. The petitioners relied on this Court’s decision in Biju K Varghese v. Geologist (2020) to contend that a show-cause without quantum is untenable and Ext.P6 cannot stand. The respondents argued Ext.P6 followed Ext.P5, and Ext.R3(a) purportedly shows the quantum removed, with a Mahazar (Ext.R3(d)) prepared in the petitioners’ presence, indicating a basis for action. The Court, while noting the existence of a penal provision and the potential liability for royalty/penalty, held that a proper show cause notice must specify the quantum so as to enable an effective reply. Consequently, Exts.P5 and P6 were set aside, without prejudice to the Geologist issuing a proper demand notice in accordance with law if necessary. The petition is disposed of accordingly, with the petitioners maintaining status quo on the property pending any further lawful action.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arising from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claimant, a 58-year-old skilled concrete worker, sustained multiple injuries in a road accident on 30.09.2004 while traveling as a passenger in an auto-rickshaw. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,73,500 as total compensation, distributing it across heads such as medical expenses, loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities. The appellant contends that his monthly income should be Rs.6,000 (not Rs.3,000 as fixed by the Tribunal), and that the disability should be higher (34% by a Doctor of Government Medical College Hospital vs 25% by the Medical Board), with the overall compensation being too low. Citing Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq, the appellant argues for a higher, notionally fixed income and appropriate compensation. The insurer/respondent opposes interference, asserting that the Tribunal already awarded just compensation and that there is insufficient documentary evidence of actual earnings. The High Court, applying settled principles about notional income in unorganized work and the multiplier approach (Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi framework), fixes the claimant’s income at Rs.4,500 per month, assesses the permanent disability at 30%, recalculates loss of earnings and other heads, and ultimately enhances the total compensation to Rs.1,01,500 with interest at 7.5% per annum. The appeal is allowed in part; the insurer is directed to pay the enhanced amount within two months, with costs and certain deductions clarified.
This High Court of Kerala Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA 1505/2018) challenges an award in O.P.(M.V.) No.407/2014 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, arising from a road accident on 06.04.2013 that caused the death of Jobin Jose. The insurer contends three primary issues: (i) the deceased’s monthly income of Rs.12,000 as per Ext.A12 is unreliable since the certificate lacks GST/sales tax details and should be treated as notional income of Rs.9,000 in line with Ramachandrappa; (ii) the Rs.1,00,000 under the head ‘love and affection’ is impermissible and should be guided by the Supreme Court’s Pranay Sethi framework, awarding consortium to the parents instead; (iii) Rs.25,000 under ‘pain and suffering’ cannot survive death. The respondents argue Ext.A12 is duly proved and the Tribunal’s assessment warrants no alteration; they accept consortium in lieu of love and affection. After hearing, the court upholds the Tribunal on income, rejects the love-and-affection head in its original form, and directs the Rs.25,000 for pain and suffering to be disallowed, while converting the excess Rs.20,000 under love and affection to consortium, with a corresponding reworking of totals. The appeal is allowed to the limited extent described, and the insurer is to pay interest at the rate directed in the impugned award.
Hashik Rahman, the petitioner, seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC in connection with Crime No.169/2022 of Nilambur Police Station, alleging offences under IPC sections 366, 354A, 354D, 376(2), 384 and 506. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner and his father run martial arts institutes, and that the defacto complainant, a married woman with children, was drawn into a relationship following frequent calls and messages since 2018–2021. It is alleged that during 2021 the petitioner borrowed Rs.3 lakh, the complainant pledged gold ornaments, and that in September/October 2021 he forcibly took her into a car, kissed and hugged inside the vehicle, outraging her modesty, and attempted to commit rape; it is further alleged that the act was video-recorded and that the accused threatened to publish intimate photos. The complainant’s gold ornaments were allegedly demanded. The petitioner was arrested on 14.04.2022. The petitioner contends that even if the allegations are accepted, no offence would ensue since the acts were with the complainant’s consent; both parties are married with children; he is willing to abide by conditions. The court notes bail as a general principle and relies on Chidambaram P. v Directorate of Enforcement to justify bail under stringent conditions, ultimately granting bail with specific conditions to ensure cooperation and prevent prejudice to the investigation.
MACA No. 483 of 2015 is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal filed by the legal heirs of Anilkumar against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, in OP(MV) 404/2008. The accident occurred on 03.07.2007 when the deceased, standing near the Elayavoor Panchayat Office, was struck by a mini lorry driven rashly from Kannur side, sustaining fatal injuries. The Tribunal found the first respondent at fault and held respondents 1 to 3 (the insurer) liable to pay compensation amounting to Rs 8,77,300. The claimants contended that the notional income used by the Tribunal was too low and that the family, being three legal heirs, was entitled to higher sums for loss of consortium and other heads. Counsel for the appellants sought enhancement of dependency benefits, funeral expenses, and loss of estate, and argued that the higher notional income and 40% future prospects should be adopted in light of Ramachandrappa and Pranay Sethi. The insurer argued that the Tribunal’s allowance for loss of love and affection and pain and suffering should be curtailed once adequate dependency is demonstrated. The High Court, applying Ramachandrappa and Pranay Sethi, fixed the deceased’s notional income at Rs.6,000 per month, allowed 40% future prospects, and computed dependency with a 16-year multiplier while deducting one-third for personal living expenses. It then struck down double counting of certain heads in light of Somwati and Satinder Kaur, and enhanced the total compensation to Rs.3,56,400 beyond the original award. The appeal was allowed in part with directions for deposit and distribution.
CRP 368/2021; CRP 70/2022 These Civil Revision Petitions challenge an order awarding compensation for damage caused by the drawing of 400 kV transmission lines across a landowner’s property and for diminution in land value. The claimant, Thomas K.V., alleged that the 400 kV lines not only felled trees but also reduced the land’s usable value, yet the court below granted only partial relief, with trees’ compensation disallowed for lack of supportive evidence and diminution in land value computed by relying on Ext. A4 and the Commission’s Exts. C2 and C2(b). The court deducted 10% from the value in Ext. A4 and fixed 40% of the central corridor and 20% for outer corridors, with 20% for the remaining unusable portion, ultimately awarding Rs. 15,71,455/-. The petitioner argued that the Advocate Commissioner’s findings should have been relied upon and that the deductions were unreasonably harsh. The Power Grid Corporation contended that the enhancement was excessive and the reliance on Ext. A4 was misplaced. The Kerala High Court, applying the KSEB v. Livisha doctrine on factors affecting land value, reviewed the evidence and upheld the lower court’s approach, dismissing the revisions. The court ordered the Corporation to pay the enhanced compensation within three months from the copy of the order, with any deposited sums to be disbursed on proper application.
W.P.(C).No.25046/2018 & 26253/2018 These writ petitions challenge Ext.P1 dated 24.12.2016 under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, appointing a Special Grade Inspector as Inquiry Officer to examine the Rajiv Gandhi House Construction Co-operative Society and issue Ext.P4 inquiry report; Ext.P3 and Ext.P12 notices followed, culminating in show-cause style proceedings. The petitioners contend the inquiry is aimed at superseding the elected committee by invoking Section 32 and thus seeks certiorari to quash Exts.P1, P3, P4 and P12; they argue the proceedings are unwarranted and aimed at displacing the management. The 3rd respondent opposes, describing the inquiry as a supervisory remedy to safeguard the society and its members, and denies that Ext.P12 is a Section 32 notice. The Court notes that the challenge to a show-cause notice at this stage ordinarily should not be entertained except where there is lack of jurisdiction or abuse of process, citing State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, and Union of India v. Vicco Laboratories. It also cites the Sanjay Nagayach line of cases to emphasize the need for bona fide, objective criteria when supersession is involved. After considering both sides, the High Court holds that the petitioners have not established any illegality in the notices and orders and repels the challenge, directing the Joint Registrar to consider explanations under Exts.P3 and P13 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing.
These Motor Accidents Claims Appeals arise from a MACT Ernakulam award in OP(MV) 1949/2009 concerning AIS Shihab, a motorcyclist who suffered severe injuries including below-knee amputation following a KSRTC bus collision on 18 January 2009. The Tribunal awarded Rs 10,16,237 in compensation on the claim of Rs 16 lakh. The 3rd respondent insurer (New India Assurance Co.) in MACA No. 2225/2012 challenged the award, while AIS Shihab challenged the quantum in MACA No. 2558/2012. The High Court, heard on 24.11.2021 and delivered on 02.12.2021 by Justice A. Badharudeen, re-evaluated key facets: (i) the petitioner’s income; Ext.A15 shows Rs.4,992 monthly, but the Tribunal fixed Rs.4,000, while the Court retained Rs.4,000 for calculation; (ii) age and multiplier: 30 years, multiplier 17; (iii) disability: medical board assessed 40% whole-body disability, but the Tribunal fixed 100% functional disability; the Court held 75% functional disability is appropriate and applied 40% addition to disability income under the high-disability principle; (iv) future prospects: the Court followed Pappu Deo Yadav to apply 40% addition for high disability; (v) future treatment head Rs.2,12,000 was reduced to apply 8% interest from the award date; (vi) heads like pain and suffering and loss of amenities were adjusted upward by Rs.20,000 each. The result: MACA 2225/2012 and MACA 2558/2012 were partly allowed, with enhanced compensation and revised interest rules, and a deposit deadline of two months for the enhanced amounts.
This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC by Thomas P.J. @ Johny, the sole accused in Crime No.1337/2023 of Peroorkada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, charged with offences under Sections 326 and 302 IPC. Arrested on 20.09.2023, the petitioner contends that the prosecution’s version is a false implication and that he acted in private defence; he asserts the possibility of CCTV footage and other materials that would reveal the truth of the sequence, and that the investigation has not been conducted properly. The informant alleged that on 17.09.2023, around 9:15 p.m., after questioning the accused about his relationship with the informant’s mother-in-law, the accused attacked him with a chopper, inflicting a deep chest wound; the informant survived long enough to inform police, but died on 25.09.2023. The prosecution asserts the death was caused by pulmonary thromboembolism as a complication of injuries, as per the postmortem. The petitioner has remained in custody since 20.09.2023; he is willing to comply with conditions if granted. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, noting the informant’s statements, the postmortem findings, prior criminal antecedents, and the risk of witness tampering. The court, citing established bail principles from Prasanta Kumar Sarkar, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar, Ram Govind Upadhyay and Puran, concludes that the circumstances do not warrant bail at this stage and dismisses the application.
WP(C) Nos. 32408/2023; 23185/2022; 30377/2022; 30383/2022; 32074/2022; 33099/2022 This batch of writ petitions, heard by a single judge of the Kerala High Court, challenges the liability of interest on delayed remittance of turnover tax (ToT) for parcel sales of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) during the Covid-19 period (2020-21 and 2021-22). The petitioners, FL3/FL11 licensees and hotel businesses, contended that the Government authorised parcel sales but did not fix a rate; a later notification fixed ToT at 5% only for the limited Covid period, and the online tax portal did not accommodate the 5% rate earlier, preventing timely filing and remittance. They argued that the rate was not fixed before 26.03.2022 (SRO 297/2022) and that an Amnesty/extension announced by the Finance Minister and Cabinet decision without a statutory SRO cannot be enforced by the court, rendering any interest demand unjustified. The respondents asserted that Ext.P2 fixed the 5% rate for the period and that interest under KGST Act Section 23(3) is a statutory liability not automatically waived. The court ultimately held that (i) where returns were filed by 31.03.2022 and ToT paid by 30.04.2022, interest is not payable; (ii) where returns were not filed or ToT paid by 30.04.2022, interest is payable from 01.05.2022; (iii) the impugned orders are quashed and the matter remitted for fresh assessments. Interlocutory matters were closed and the batch petitions were allowed to the extent noted.
WP(C).No.14672 of 2020(H) Petitioner Gigi Dilip, widow and proprietor of Surya Gas Agencies at Pachalam, Kochi, seeks a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution for police protection for her life and for safeguarding loading/unloading and distribution of LPG cylinders from her godown to customers. The agency, originally started by her husband in 1980, employs eight delivery boys, two drivers and two office staff, all paid in line with the Minimum Wages Act. Since 08.07.2020 the workers have adopted a go-slow and have been threatened by members of the All Kerala Gas Agencies Thozhilali Union (CITU), including respondents 5 to 8, who allegedly demand Rs 21,000 per month. The petitioner has filed Exts. P1 and P3 representations to the District Labour Officer and the police, respectively. Respondents counter that the petitioner failed to respond to a wage demand (Ext. R5 A) and that there is ongoing conciliation before the District Labour Officer; they contend the petitioner did not provide sufficient vans and that disruptions occurred on 14.07.2020. Interim direction on 21.07.2020 mandated police protection for loading/unloading and for distribution to customers. The court relied on the Kerala Police Act, 2011 and doctrines such as the protection of life and property and the right to peaceful union action, citing Manohar Lal Sharma and Ankush Maruti Shinde, and Gujarat Steel Tubes. It directed ongoing conciliation and maintenance of law and order, disposing of the petition with no costs.
The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam entertained a criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by two accused, Kunhu Hydru and Abdullakutty, challenging an order/judgment in CC 21/2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Muvattupuzha, and the related crime no. 1831/2009 of Muvattupuzha Police Station. The complainant, P.S. Ismayil, a ration wholesale trader, alleged that in 2004 the accused sought technical and financial help to run a similar kerosene business and a security deposit of ₹3,00,000 was paid by the complainant. The accused allegedly failed to operationalize the venture, and the second accused handed over a cheque on 17-08-2009 purportedly signed by the first accused, drawn on an account that had long since been closed. The complainant claimed cheating by issuing a cheque towards a closed account. The petitioners argued that the complaint did not disclose an offence under Section 420 IPC, as there was no clear averment of deceit at the inception of the transaction, and mere issuance of a cheque on a closed account could not constitute cheating under Section 415 IPC. They relied on Chandran K v. Ponnappa Moothan and M.S. Muraleedharan v. P.S. Vijayakumar to urge that the essential ingredients of cheating were not pleaded and that continuing proceedings would amount to abuse of process. The court ultimately held that the allegations failed to establish the essential elements of cheating and quashed the final report, thereby allowing the Crl.M.C and dismissing pending interlocutory applications. The decision reflects a cautious approach to Section 420/415 IPC allegations where inception intent and deception are not clearly demonstrated.
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by Vinod Kumar, the sole accused in CC 2187/2022 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy, arising from Crime No. 671/2022 of the Aloor Police Station under IPC sections 341, 353, 294(b), and 506. The petitioner seeks to quash the final report on the ground that, being a person with bipolar disorder for over a decade, a trial would be unjust and oppressive. He relies on medical certificates and prescriptions (Annexures A2–A6) to substantiate his mental health condition and contends that his intervention at the scene of the warrant operation was to assist the wife of Sadanandan, not to threaten officers. The State and police submit that the materials collected substantiate the allegations and that the court should not embark on a de facto re-evaluation of evidence at this stage, as Section 482 CrPC is an exceptional jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice. The High Court invokes established authority—State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy; R.P. Kapur; Bhajan Lal; Neeharika Infrastructure—and reiterates that inherent power should not be used to stifle legitimate prosecutions. Ultimately, the court finds no grounds to quash, dismisses the petition, and reserves the petitioner’s rights to raise contentions at trial. The order was passed on 22 May 2023.
This is a consolidated writ petition judgment of the Kerala High Court, delivered by Justice Devan Ramachandran on 16 August 2022, concerning the regularisation of provisional empanelled employees of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and the legality of termination orders issued by KSRTC. The petitions trace a bipartite Pay Revision framework (2008) aimed at regularising employees after eight years of service with 120 days of duty per year, and trace the Government’s series of orders: GO(MS) No.78/2011/TRAN (22.12.2011) setting out conditions, GO( MS) No.105/2013/TRAN (21.11.2013) and the later Government Order incorporating a 120-day condition, and the KSRTC’s 2012 and 2018 orders. The petitioners argue that many were regularised under pre-2011 judgments and that a Supreme Court intervention (Civil Appeals No. 4435-4438/2017, 24.03.2017) allowed certain conditions, while KSRTC terminated their services without due hearing. The court holds that the Supreme Court’s rulings bind all, sets aside the KSRTC termination orders, and directs a hearing process to ascertain ten years of service and 120 days of duty prior to 21.12.2011. If proven, regularisation must be ordered within a specific timeframe, with pensionary benefits where applicable. The judgment emphasizes the binding effect of higher court decisions under Article 141, the need for due process, and a prospective/retrospective dimension to government instructions under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950.
This writ appeal arises from a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a 6 January 2023 order of a learned Single Judge directing Kannur University to sponsor four Kannur University students to participate in the South-West Inter-University Athletics Championship 2022-23. The petitioners (respondents 1–4) claimed they had secured top positions in the Kannur University Inter-Collegiate Meet and should be sponsored to represent the University in the inter-university event. The University contended that participation was governed by norms fixed by its Selection Committee and that those who did not meet the bench marks could not be sponsored. It emphasized there is no statutory duty compelling sponsorship, and that mandamus can be issued only where there is a legal right and a statutory duty; thus the petition was not maintainable. The 6th respondent Convener and the 7th respondent AIU presented records showing the norms and deadlines, while Annexures detailed the minutes of the selection committee and the provisional participant list. The Kerala High Court, applying mandamus principles, held that there must be a legal right to compel performance of a statutory duty, and that no such duty existed to force Kannur University to sponsor athletes who failed to meet fixed benchmarks. The court set aside the impugned judgment and dismissed the writ petition, directing cancellation of any participation certificates issued under the challenged order.
MAT.APPEAL NO.183 OF 2021 The appellant, V.K. Mary, was the second respondent in O.P.632 of 2017 filed in the Family Court, Ernakulam, by the 1st respondent (her wife) seeking recovery of Rs 2,00,000 with interest and 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the appellant and the 2nd respondent. The Family Court, by an ex parte decree dated 29.05.2017, directed that the appellant and the 2nd respondent pay the amount and deliver the gold ornaments. The appellant filed I.A.2941/2018 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree and I.A.2953/2018 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 379 days, both of which were dismissed by the Family Court in 2019. This Matrimonial Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenges those orders. The High Court, after hearing, allowed the appeal in part, condoning the delay and setting aside the ex parte decree against the appellant to that extent, while noting the ex parte decree would otherwise remain as against the other party. The Court relied on elastic interpretation of “sufficient cause” and liberal approach governing condonation of delay (citing Katiji, Esha Bhattacharjee, G.P. Srivastava, Peeves Enterprises, and Rafeek). It remanded with directions to dispose of O.P.632/2017 within four months and clarified that the original petition (2017) should be disposed expeditiously.
LA.APP. No. 97 of 2021; CO Nos. 143 of 2021; CO No. 40 of 2023 This Land Acquisition Appeal and connected Cross Objections arise from Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 10 of 2018 of the Second Additional District Judge, Ernakulam, concerning 8.10 ares in Re-survey No. 427/9-4, Angamaly village, acquired for Coast Guard Infrastructure Development. The appellant Premchand claimed compensation at Rs. 8,00,000 per cent, while the L.A.O. awarded Rs. 3,60,911 per are and the Reference Court/Authority fixed Rs. 5,21,908 per are. The case centers on whether Exhibits A2 (sale deed) and A3/A5 documents establish higher market value, the impact of urgency under Section 17 of the 1894 Act, and whether the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation under Section 40(5) of the 2013 Act. The appellant argued that similarity with adjacent lands and proximity to Cochin International Airport justify Rs. 11,18,272 per are, based on A2, A3 and A5; he also pressed for 75% additional compensation under Section 40(5). The respondents contended that the acquired land is wet land (nilam) and not comparable with dry lands, and that fair value fixed at Rs. 8,40,000 per are (Exhibit A5) should be accepted; they also argued Section 40(5) is not applicable since Section 40(1) proceedings were not initiated for the 2013 Act grant. The Division Bench ultimately held in part that Rs. 8,40,000 per are is the correct market value, while dismissing cross-objections and holding that additional compensation under Section 40(5) is not sustainable.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal under MACA No.1328 of 2014 heard by a single judge of the Kerala High Court. The appellant, Rossy Varghese, challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur’s quantum of compensation awarded under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for injuries suffered in a 16.01.2007 accident in an autorickshaw on the Thrissur–Shornur road. The Tribunal found negligence on the vehicle’s driver and awarded Rs.1,53,700 as total compensation, directed the insurer to pay, and dismissed higher damages alleged by the appellant. The appellant contends that the notional income used by the Tribunal (Rs.3,000 per month) is too low; relying on the Supreme Court’s Ramachandrappa dictum, a notional income of Rs.6,000 per month should be fixed for a coolie in 2007. The appellant also challenges the Tribunal’s reduction of disability from 10% to 7%, and argues for appropriate compensation heads in light of the injuries, including loss of earning, pain and suffering, extra nourishment, and loss of amenities. The High Court, applying Sarla Verma’s multiplier, and referring to Manikantan G., re-evaluates disability and income, and enhances several heads of damages, totaling Rs.2,75,300. The appeal is allowed in part, with a directed deposit and disbursement order.
