WP(C) Nos. 10612/2024 & connected cases This is a consolidated judgment of the Kerala High Court (Single Judge, Justice T. R. Ravi) rendered on 26 March 2024, deciding a batch of writ petitions (WP(C) Nos. 10612 of 2024 and connected cases) concerning freezing of bank accounts in the wake of cybercrime investigations and RBI portal directives. The petitions, filed by individual bank customers and corporate entities, challenge blanket freezes imposed by banks under notices from cybercrime authorities and the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal. The court examines the scope of freezing, balancing state interests (prevention of proceeds of crime and compliance with police requisitions) with fundamental rights to financial transactions and due process. It issues interim and final directions aimed at constraining freezes to the amounts actually involved in the dispute as per police requisitions, orders banks to inform the police when continuing a freeze, and permits petitioners to approach the court if information is not provided. The decision cites prior Kerala decisions, including Dr. Sajeer v RBI, and previous WP orders, to lay down a uniform approach for handling freezes in cybercrime investigations while safeguarding account operations beyond the disputed sums.
This criminal appeal arises from a conviction for murder and offences under the POCSO Act. The two appellants were found guilty by the trial court of Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the POCSO Act, 1989 and of Section 376 IPC, and were sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine. The High Court of Kerala, in a two-judge bench, reconsiders the evidence after noting that PW8 was the sole basis for the conviction and is riddled with contradictions, omissions, and an implausible sequence of events. The prosecution relies on a motive involving the appellants' interest in PW6 and on a postmortem that shows rape and throttling, supported by DNA findings that were ultimately inconclusive. The court points to inconsistencies among witnesses, suppression of a potency test on PW8, and the absence of a reliable link to MO19. It emphasizes that the time, place, and manner of the crime do not fit a coherent account given the contradictions and the accuseds' denials. The judges underscore that there is no fixed pattern for a witness reaction to a murder, and that reliance on PW8 alone cannot sustain a conviction. On these grounds, they acquit both appellants and direct their release forthwith.
This Original Petition (KAT) 277/2019 is filed by the State of Kerala challenging the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s order in OA No.397 of 2017, which quashed Government orders cancelling regularisation of a cohort of Kerala House employees in New Delhi and directed retention on contract with service benefits. The Tribunal found that regularising contract employees against sanctioned posts adhered to a historical pattern (1994 and 2006) and that the post-2015 regularisation, done without PSC recruitment, could not be deemed illegal. It noted that prior Government orders sanctioned posts and regularised appointments after verification by a committee, and that no operative rule restricted such practice. The State contended that regularisation violated statutory recruitment norms and relied on the Supreme Court’s Umadevi decision, particularly para 53, which carves out a narrow exception for regularisation in exceptional circumstances where appointments followed a fair selection process and had long tenure. It argued that no such circumstances existed here and that due process required corrective action rather than sanctioning regularisation. The High Court ultimately agrees with the State, holding that Umadevi prescribes illegality where regularisation circumvents Recruitment Rules; it sets aside the Tribunal’s decision, upholds the cancellation orders, and permits the State to consider regularisation only in light of settled law. It also directs that payments during the pendency should be limited to contractual entitlements and leaves room for future regularisation consideration.
Malabar College of Advanced Studies, an aided Arts and Science college affiliated to the University of Calicut, approached the Kerala High Court challenging the State Government’s denial of sanction to start two postgraduate courses—M.Com and MA English—with an intake of 15 each. After the University of Calicut recommended the courses (Ext. P1), the Government issued administrative sanctions for several colleges (Exts. P2, P4, P5) but refused to sanction the petitioner. The Government argued that NAAC accreditation, NIRF ranking, and budgetary constraints governed affording new PG courses, and that equitable distribution across districts must be observed. The petitioner contended that the decision is arbitrary, contrary to the Calicut University Act and First Statutes (Chapter 23) and the Government’s liberalised stance in Ext. P6, which allowed consideration of colleges without NAAC scores if infrastructure existed. The court traced the statutory framework—Calicut University Act, 1956 (Section 56) and Calicut University First Statutes, 1975 (Chapter 23, with provisions on affiliation, local enquiry, and Government views)—and reviewed relevant constitutional principles. Relying on Supreme Court authorities (T.M.A. Pai Foundation; P.A. Inamdar; Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Swamigal Trust; Jayagokul Educational Trust) and Kerala decisions (MGM College), the court held that Government interference is to be at the end of the process. It allowed the petition and directed the Government to grant sanction for M.Com and MA English for 2021-2022 (15 seats each) within three weeks, disposing of the writ petition.
Appu, a coolie worker, filed a motor accident claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for injuries sustained on 17.01.2007 when a lorry, owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent, ran over his right hand while he was loading bricks. He suffered a crush injury necessitating partial amputation of the distal phalanx of the right middle finger and was treated as an inpatient for five days. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, allowed the petition in part, directing the third respondent to pay Rs. 1,64,703. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed for enhanced compensation. The respondents contested liability and policy coverage, with the insurer arguing a gratuitous passenger exclusion and that liability lay with the insured. The High Court, while confirming negligence on the part of the first respondent and the insurer’s liability to indemnify, conducted its own reassessment of compensation. It adopted the Ramachandrappa approach to re-fix the appellant’s notional income at Rs. 5,000 per month (2007) and applied the Sarla Verma multiplier of 14, noting 43 years of age at the time of injury. It increased loss of earnings, fixed disability at 30% with 90% functional disability, and awarded Rs. 25,000 for loss of amenities, culminating in a total enhanced sum of Rs. 3,23,203. The appeal was allowed in part with enhanced compensation, payable with 6% interest and costs, to be deposited before the Tribunal within sixty days for disbursement to the claimant.
WA 811 of 2020 (and connected cases) These writ appeals arise from a common judgment dated 25 February 2020 by a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 3846 of 2019 and connected petitions, where petitioners claimed entitlement to a pension under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 calculated without the ceiling on further pension fund contributions (i.e., based on actual salary rather than the statutory maximum). The Respondents/EPFO contended the pension scheme is contributory and operates on a fixed corpus, with periodic contributions and actuarial valuations; significant reliance was placed on Sasikumar P. v. Union of India (ILR 2019 Ker. 614) and RC Gupta v. RPFC (2018) 14 SCC 809. A Division Bench reference noted by the High Court indicated that the approach to the 2014 amendment to EPS-1995 requires reconsideration, particularly regarding whether beneficiaries not contributing on actual salary can retroactively obtain pension on actual salary. The Full Bench ultimately adheres to the approach in Sunil Kumar B. v. EPFO (AIR 2022 SC 5634), directing EPFO to reconsider higher pension entitlements consistent with that decision and its paragraph 44, while acknowledging a need for actuarial valuation and Central Government action. The judgment emphasizes that the fund’s growth and corpus integrity must be preserved and that any extension of pension rights should not erode the corpus. The matter is disposed in light of the Supreme Court’s guidance, with directions to implement the Sunil Kumar framework and to allow a further opportunity for reconsideration of entitlements under the amended regime.
This is a criminal appeal (CRL.A.No.560/2012) from the Kerala High Court challenging a Sessions Court Thodupuzha conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC. The appellant, aged 58, stabbed the deceased—Thomas aka Thommachan—on 18 April 2002, allegedly due to prior enmity, resulting in death before hospitalisation. The first trial led to life imprisonment and a fine. On appeal, the High Court remanded for consideration of the insanity defense under Section 84 IPC; after reconsideration, the Sessions Court again convicted under Section 302 IPC. The appellant contends that he suffers from mental illness and was incapable of understanding the nature of his act, arguing that the investigating officer failed to examine his mental state and no medical records were produced, constituting infirmity in the prosecution case. The State counters that the general burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and the defense bears the burden to show unsoundness of mind; the evidence, including prosecution witnesses PW1–PW4 and DW1’s medical testimony, does not establish legal insanity at the time of the crime. The High Court surveys the law on insanity—Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar; Shibu; Abilash; Kuttappan—and concludes the accused did not discharge the burden under Section 84 IPC or Section 105 read with Section 4/101 Evidence Act. Ultimately, the Court partly allows the appeal, converting the 302 conviction to 304 Part I IPC, with a ten-year sentence and Rs.50,000 fine, while directing compensation and set-off as appropriate.
Crl.M.C.No.880/2019; Crl.M.C.No.902/2019 These two criminal miscellaneous petitions, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the Anx-C final reports in two crimes arising from Nedupuzha Police Station, Thrissur. Crl.M.C. No.880/2019 concerns Crime No.425/2018 (now pending as CC No.1503/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur) and the petitioner is Sruthi W/o Manjukumar; the defacto complainant is Rukmini W/o Aravindakshan. Crl.M.C. No.902/2019 concerns Crime No.333/2017 (now pending as CC No.1654/2017 before JFCM-II, Thrissur) with Manju Kumar and Sruthi as petitioners and the defacto complainants being Aravindakshan S/o Raman and Rukmini. The prayers are to quash the final reports on the ground of a genuine settlement between the accused and the defacto complainants. The petition record includes affidavits of settlement from the defacto complainants indicating no objection to quashing. The court notes settlements in light of decisions of the Apex Court (Gian Singh v State of Punjab; Narinder Singh v State of Punjab) and invokes the inherent powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to quash in appropriate cases where continuing prosecution serves no purpose. On considering the materials, the court holds there is a real settlement and continuance would waste judicial time; hence the final reports and further proceedings are quashed in both cases. The petitions are disposed of accordingly.
This writ petition challenges revenue recovery actions taken against the petitioner for lease arrears on government land at Thoppumpady, Kochi. The petitioner seeks certiorari to quash Exts. P1 (demand notice) and P10 (District Collector’s order) and prays for reliefs including fixation of lease rent at ten percent of market value from 1995 and settlement of arrears with partial remittance, among others. The factual backdrop is that 5 cents of puramboke land in Survey No. 1304 was granted on lease to Ummachumma and allegedly transferred to the petitioner without the government’s consent; the respondents contend the transfer was unauthorized and that the land was originally held on lease for a commercial purpose. The Rules for Assignment of Land within Municipal and Corporation Areas, 1995 (notably Rule 14) prohibit alienation of leased land; Rules 12(5) and 17 authorize recovery of lease arrears; and Section 14 of the 1995 Rules is cited to support non-alienation. The District Collector’s Ext. P10 order fixed land value for 2004–2007 and concluded arrears for 1995–2004 at 20% of market value based on GO(MS) No.566/95/RD. The court had earlier stayed recovery in a related petition (WP(C) No.31505/2010) and directed consideration after hearing. The court ultimately held that there were no clear materials showing the demand was technically wrong and disposed of the petition with directions for reporting and final decision within three months.
This Kerala High Court criminal appeal arises from a judgment in which two accused were convicted under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act for distilling illicit arrack. The trial court found them guilty based on the seizure of approximately 800 litres of wash and related distilling utensils from the place of occurrence in the Kattachira Paruthyanipadi Reserve Forest, Kumaramperoor, Chittar Seethathodu Village, and convicted them to one year’s imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 each. On appeal, the High Court scrutinized whether the contraband substance seized actually reached the Chemical Examiner’s laboratory and whether chain-of-custody and tamper-proof seals were established. It noted that key elements—seizure mahazar (Ext. P1), forwarding notes (Ext. P10), specimen seal, and the specimen’s journey to the laboratory—were inadequately proven. Independent witnesses did not support the seizure, and crucial details about the seal’s nature and description were missing. The court relied on several precedents emphasizing that the sample analysed in the laboratory must be the same sample drawn from the contraband, and that delays and lack of seal verification erode evidentiary value. Ultimately, the court acquitted the appellants and allowed the criminal appeal, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish essential chain-of-custody and analytical linkage beyond reasonable doubt.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C. No.4553 of 2020) filed by Amjadh Mohamed Senor, the second accused and Senior Area Sales Manager of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL). The applicant challenged the proceeding in C.C.No.211/2019, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam, arising from FIR No.183/2019 based on a complaint that diesel was adulterated and caused damage to a car. The prosecution alleges that the second accused, while employed by HPCL as a senior manager, did not act upon the complainant’s report of adulteration; on 19.08.2018 he obtained a test report in favor of the first accused, who ran the petrol pump dealer, suggesting no adulteration, and thereby aided the suspect. The core issue is whether the allegations, even if true, amount to the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC, or whether the proceedings amount to abuse of process. The High Court held that there is no allegation that the petitioner sold adulterated diesel or had a dishonest intention to cheat the complainant; there is no commonIntent with the first accused constituting 420/34 IPC. Consequently, continuing the prosecution would amount to abuse of process, and the court quashed the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., citing the principle in B.R. Zaveri v. State of Maharashtra as supportive authority.
Tr.P(C) No.183 of 2020 is a transfer petition under Section 24 CPC filed by Yadhu Mohan, a 19-year-old petitioner, challenging an order in O.S. No.57 of 2020 of the Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam, and related to O.S. No.20 of 2020 in the Sub Court, Ottappalam. Annexure A concerns a permanent injunction restraining the 1st respondent from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from committing waste; Annexure B seeks partition of Chitra’s properties, including the same property. The petitioner seeks transfer of Annexure A to Ottappalam so it can be tried jointly with Annexure B, arguing that both suits involve common subject matter, would avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and prevent conflicting findings. The respondents counter that Annexure A lies within Kayamkulam’s jurisdiction, that the injunction suit is improperly framed for transfer, and that issues such as will and partition should be adjudicated where filed. The court weighs the dominus litis principle against the court’s duty to ensure a fair trial, citing Section 24/25 CPC and jurisprudence. Cited authorities include Indian Overseas Bank v. Chemical Construction Co. and Kulwinder Kaur v. Kandi Friends Education Trust to frame the transfer test. Ultimately, the court finds no compelling grounds to transfer and dismisses the petition, emphasizing the plaintiff’s right to forum and the need for justice to prevail in the chosen forum.
WP(C).No.18464 OF 2020(G) The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in stone crushing and quarrying, sought to quash Ext.P13 prohibitory order under Section 120A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, issued by the District Collector, Kannur on 28.05.2018 to prevent transfer of 33.24 acres in Survey No. 4, Eruvessy Village, Taliparamba Taluk. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India also sought a mandamus to withdraw the prohibitory order and to direct the Sub Registrar to register sale documents of the land, as and when presented. The case situates within suo moto ceiling proceedings under Section 87 initiated by the Taluk Land Board due to alleged excess land; an enquiry established the landholding exceeded the ceiling and that the firm had not filed returns under Section 87. Notice under Rule 10 and 12 was issued; despite service, objections were not filed. A complaint prompted by a prospective transfer led to Ext.P13, and later Ext.P14 (26.02.2020) exempted the land from ceiling on grounds that the entire extent is used as a commercial site, negating liability to surrender land. The State Land Board contemplated a revision under Section 103. The Court held Ext.P13 was issued during pendency of proceedings and not devoid of reasonable grounds, and, while Ext.P14 is under challenge, directed the 1st respondent to decide Ext.P15 and communicate accordingly after due legal process, within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. The matter concerns the balance between land reform ceilings, transfer regulation, and registration rights.
This original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges Ext.P8, the order passed by the Additional Munsiff Cherthala in I.A.6/2020 in O.S.336/2020, which dismissed the applicants' application seeking removal of a gate and restoration of status quo regarding a disputed way (plaint item No.10). The suit seeks a decree declaring easement by prescription over the plaint schedule item No.10 path and a prohibitory injunction restraining obstruction to that right. An earlier Ext.P10 order directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding item No.10 as seen by the Advocate Commissioner. The gate and lock across the disputed path became central to the dispute. The Advocate Commissioner reported on 08.07.2020 that a folding gate existed with an open state; on 10.07.2020 the gate was closed with a new lock. The petition contends Ext.P8 was illegal; it misapprehended the date of communication of Ext.P10 and failed to consider the actual status quo of the path. This Court held that the factual basis for Ext.P10 status quo was incomplete, but found no arbitrary or perverse misdirection in Ext.P8. It relied on considering if unauthorised alteration to the subject matter occurred and cited guidelines on interim relief, reinforcing that status quo can only be maintained as per the order communication. The petition was dismissed, and all interlocutory proceedings are closed.
This Civil Revision Petition (CRP No. 241 of 2022) before the Kerala High Court arises from an election for Ward No. XXXIX, Kayamkulam Municipality, conducted on 08.12.2020. Naseema Shamsudheen, the revision petitioner, challenged the election of Sheeba Shanavas (and Raj Mahesh as 2nd respondent) alleging irregularities in vote counting. The election petition No.1/2021 was allowed by the Munsiff, and both Naseema and Sheeba Shanavas carried appeals to the District Court (A.S. (Election) Nos. 27/2022 and 39/2022). The District Court dismissed the appeals, confirming the Munsiff’s judgment and thereby declaring Sheeba Shanavas as elected. The petitioner contends that the courts erred in counting a tender vote and in excluding two postal votes, relying on the Supreme Court’s approach in Dr. Wilfred D’Souza v. Francis Menino Jesus Ferrao (1977) 1 SCC 396 for cases involving tendered ballots. The High Court, however, did not apply that doctrine, noting that the facts did not fit a tendered-vote scenario governed by Rule 38 of the Kerala Municipality Rules, 1995. It found that two voters named “Amina” created confusion due to a mis-marked serial number, and both votes should be counted; the tendered vote was counted under Rules 38 and 48. After applying Section 180 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, the first respondent’s votes rose to 434 against the petitioner’s 433, sustaining the lower courts’ rulings. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
LA.App..Nos. 47/2017, 66/2017, 99/2017, 96/2018, 105/2018, 160/2018, 250/2018, 251/2018, 306/2018 These consolidated land acquisition appeals arise under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, concerning lands acquired for the Anchal Bypass in Kollam district. The State of Kerala, represented by the District Collector, Kollam, is the appellant in several references alleging that the fixation of land value by the reference court was excessive; several claimants challenge this fixation as inadequate. The matters involve land extents ranging from 0.08 to 3.80 acres, with the notification issued on 14.06.2010 under Section 4(1). The reference court revised values to high sums (e.g., Rs. 1,00,000 per are in some cases and Rs. 2,21,782 per are in others), which the State seeks to attack as excessive, while the claimants urge higher compensation on grounds of locational advantage and other factors. A key issue is the admissibility and probative value of Ext.A1 (a document dated 14.08.2008) used in support of enhancement. The court notes Ext.A1 was a transaction between close relatives and, citing Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal, 2011 (6) SCC 47, declined to rely on it. The materials on record were deemed grossly insufficient (no notes of award, no formal evidence), prompting remittance for fresh disposal. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed and remitted for fresh disposal, with interlocutory applications closed.
George Sebastian, the petitioner, challenges the dismissal of his claim petition under section 166 MV Act by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, arising from a 9 May 2015 collision between scooter KL-67-2211 and goods autorickshaw KL-35/D-7739. The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to prove negligence by the second respondent and therefore dismissed the petition as fraudulent, without a full examination of issues or evidence. The appellant placed Exts A1–A12 on record, including the FIR (Ext A1), the final report (Ext A7) under section 173(2) CrPC, medical certificates and discharge summaries, contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw driver. The respondents 1 and 2 appeared but did not file written statements; respondent 3, the insurer, contested the driver’s identity and vehicle ownership but did not lead rebuttal evidence. The High Court notes serious procedural lapses: the Tribunal did not frame or decide all issues under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC, and relied on unproved pleadings. It relies on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal and National Insurance Co. v. Nirmala Balachandran to hold that a police charge sheet or final report can be prima facie evidence of negligence. The matter is remanded for fresh adjudication of negligence and compensation on merits, with adherence to proper procedures.
This appeal arises from an award of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, in O.P.(MV) No.1021/2008, granting the claimant Rs 2,08,350 as compensation for injuries suffered in an accident on 20 April 2006 when the appellant, Velayudhan, was a pillion rider on scooter KL-11/H-4552 that collided with motorcycle KL-11/H-2228. The insurer contested the claim; the driver and owner admitted policy only for the motor bike, and the Tribunal ultimately held that the accident was the result of negligent riding by the motor cycle rider. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal failed to award just and adequate compensation, particularly by fixing a pan-Indian notional income of Rs 3,000 per month despite evidence of higher earnings as a PWD contractor. Relying on the Supreme Court decision Ramachandrappa v Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co., the Kerala High Court held that the petitioner’s monthly income should be increased to Rs 6,000, and accordingly recalculated the loss of earning, time off work, and attendant expenses. The court also examined the medical records, excluded treatment unrelated to the accident, and adjusted disability considerations and pain-and-suffering awards. In the result, the court awarded an additional sum of Rs 1,86,000 (rounded) with 8% interest from the date of the petition, directing the insurer to deposit within two months. The appeal was partly allowed.
Mat.Appeal Nos. 193/2009, 204/2009 & Crl.M.C. No.1909 of 2012 Jamsheena v. Naushad arises from a Muslim matrimonial dispute in which the Wife (Jamsheena) challenged a Family Court order in OP Nos. 595/2006 and 596/2006, heard together with related proceedings, and a revision under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The Family Court Kozhikode, by a common order dated 9 December 2008, dismissed the Wife’s claim for recovery of gold ornaments and money and for past maintenance, while directing maintenance for the child at Rs. 500 per month and directing the return of a motor cycle or its value (Rs. 43,000). It found insufficient material to prove the Wife’s ownership of gold ornaments or the money, and concluded that the Wife was not entitled to past maintenance beyond talaq. The Wife challenged via Mat.Appeal Nos. 193/2009 and 204/2009, with a criminal miscellaneous petition (Crl.M.C. No. 1909/2012) challenging the revision order, which reduced a maintenance amount to Rs. 2,14,920/-. The High Court, after hearing on 9 August 2017 and 7 November 2017, evaluated the evidence (including Ext. A1 and Exts. B1–B11) and held that the material on record did not establish the alleged ornaments or cash, and that the Family Court did not err in its rejection. It also noted the talaq pronounced on 17 July 2006 and observed that maintenance beyond iddat under the Act would require appropriate relief. Accordingly, Mat.Appeals and Crl.M.C. were dismissed, upholding the Family Court’s orders.
Deepa, the appellant in MACA No. 900 of 2015, challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor’s award of Rs 80,730 plus interest and costs for injuries suffered in a motor-vehicle accident on 10 January 2008. The tribunal held the offending vehicle’s insurer liable and provided compensation across heads such as loss of earnings, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and disability. The appellant contends that her actual monthly earnings were Rs 7,500 as a clerk with Clear Vision Cable Network, Kalady, but the Tribunal assessed only Rs 2,000 per month for loss of earnings and reduced a 10% disability to 3%, inadequately reflecting her earning capacity and degree of disability. She relies on Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr. (2011) ACJ 1 for the principle that permanent disability does not automatically equal loss of earning capacity and that earning capacity must be determined from the evidence, and on Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014) 2 SCC 735 to support admitting actual income when documentary evidence is lacking. The respondents did not lead any evidence. The High Court found merit in the appeal, enhanced the award by an additional Rs 35,480 (subject to the overall cap in the MACT award), and held the insurer liable to satisfy the award within 30 days, with 12% interest for any default, while dismissing any delay-interest for the appeal. The prior recoverability direction against the first respondent was set aside.
