The appellant, Lomy, injured in a motor vehicle accident on 11 March 2005, sustained severe injuries (Pipkin’s Type IV fracture-dislocation of the right hip) requiring extensive treatment, including reconstruction and osteosynthesis, with long hospitalisation and a permanent disability. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Muvattupuzha awarded Rs. 3,43,400 as compensation, which the appellant challenged as inadequately compensatory under several heads: loss of earnings, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, transportation, future medical expenses, bystander expenses, and disability. Medical records (Exts A6–A11) prove the gravity of injuries and treatment; disability certificate Ext.A11 records 30% disability with permanent effect, while the appellant argues his functional disability is about 50% given ongoing pain, limited mobility, and long-term care needs. The petition considered an income of Rs. 4,500 monthly (driver as occupation) and argued that the Tribunal adopted a lower figure of Rs. 2,500. The insurer contends the Tribunal’s award is proper and unsupported for enhancement. The appeal was finally heard on 12-02-2015, with both judges concurring to enhance compensation, address future costs, and direct deposit of enhanced amount within three months, reflecting the grievous nature of the injuries and sustained impairment.
This writ appeal challenges Ext.P9 in OP 11259/96, which implemented the estate duty refund without granting interest. The deceased, Nalini Bai V. Saraf, was the accountable person for late Vithal Govinda Rao Saraf; her legal heir, Asha V. Saraf, challenged the order under the Estate Duty Act, arguing that delay in refund caused substantial loss and warranted interest. The learned single judge had dismissed the petition, relying on Modi Industries Ltd. v. C.IT to hold that there is no right to interest on refunds except as provided by statute. The Kerala High Court, with a Division Bench comprising Antony Dominic and Shaji P. Chaly, examined the statutory framework and the precedents. It noted that the Estate Duty Act provides for interest only in two contingencies: section 53(3) proviso (extending the period with terms including interest) and section 64(7) (refund after a High Court reference). The court clarified there is no independent substantive provision in the Act to sustain a general claim for interest on refunds. However, acknowledging the principle from Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. C.IT regarding compensation for inordinate delay, the court scrutinized the delay in processing the claim—from Ext.P4 (1992) to Ext.P9 (1995)—and found the delay in issuing Ext.P9 unexplained and inordinate. Consequently, the court directed the respondent to pay interest at 9% on Rs.42,80,167 from 1.1.1995 until the date of refund, as compensation for the delay, disposing of the appeal accordingly.
OP(Crl.) No. 23 of 2015 (Q) Shima, the petitioner under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeks protection and entry into a shared dwelling after a magisterial residence order was not obeyed. The Kerala High Court, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, directed police to enforce entry when the house had been locked and the petitioner, along with her elderly parents, faced eviction. The court notes that the husband is effectively absent and that the in-laws appear to be aligned with him, complicating the remedy at the trial level. Ext.P6 records a magistrate’s order requiring police aid to implement entry; however, the police expressed inability to open the house. The judge recalls the court’s power to review criminal matters in extraordinary circumstances and relies on Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate to validate the writ approach for enforcement. Respondents invoked Taruna Batra to argue that the house belongs to the mother-in-law and cannot be treated as the shared household. The court distinguishes Taruna Batra, clarifying that a house used by a daughter-in-law with her husband—especially when arranged by the couple’s families and with parental blessing—can be treated as a shared household. Ultimately, the court disposes the petition with directions: the woman may reside in the house alone; she may not bring her parents as residents, though they may visit; final orders are to be passed by the Magistrate within two months, with police assistance to ensure compliance.
The Kerala High Court corpus MACA Nos. 2281/2010 and companion appeals concerns liability under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in a motor-accident claim arising from a 4.4.2003 collision on the Aluva–Angamaly National Highway. A mini lorry KL7/K-8334 struck a KSRTC bus, injuring loading and unloading workers on board; two of them died. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MAC) awarded compensation in respect of several O.P.(MV) Nos. 815, 828, 829, 830 and 834 of 2003. The first round absolved the insurer of liability by treating claimants as gratuitous passengers. This Court earlier remanded to consider liability after focusing on the policy clause and endorsements. On remand, Exts. B2 and B3 and Endorsement IMT 39 were examined. The Tribunal found the claimants/deceased to be loading/unloading workers employed by the insured and thus within the scope of Section 147, with the insurer liable only for two workers (per the permit Ext. B2, three persons including the driver). The court reviewed multiple decisions, notably Ved Prakash Garg, Vedwati, Mohammed Ali and Mathai, to interpret the proviso to Section 147(1)(i)(c) as covering employees carried in a goods carriage. While Sanjeev Kumar Samrat was distinguished and Asha Rani cited as non-controlling on passenger coverage, the core conclusion is that statutory coverage applies to loading/unloading workers; however, permit limits the insurer’s liability to two such workers. Consequently MACA Nos.2281/2010 and 2287/2010 are dismissed, as are the owner/driver appeals, with costs.
OP(C) No. 3017 of 2017 (O) The petitioner, Jayan S/o Gopi Karappan, the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 58 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur, has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside Ext.P8, dated 14-08-2017, in I.A. No. 2830/2017 in that suit, which sought leave to file an additional written statement. The trial court had dismissed the application as belated and inconsistent with the already pleaded case, noting that new facts/pleadings cannot be entertained and that new defence should be introduced by an independent amendment under Order VI Rule 17 rather than through an additional written statement under Order VIII Rule 9. The petitioner asserts discovery of forged signatures in the sale agreement (Ext.P3) and seeks to file Ext.P4 additional written statement with Ext.P5, arguing that Order VIII Rule 9 grants wide power to admit subsequent pleadings that bring out the real issues. The respondent/plaintiff counters that the request is belated and inconsistent with the pleadings. The High Court, exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, analyzes the conflict, citing Madras and Kerala decisions recognizing liberal reception of subsequent pleadings and distinguishing amendment under Order VI Rule 17. Ultimately, the court dismisses the original petition, holding the Ext.P8 order not arbitrary and declining interference, thereby upholding the trial court’s approach and preserving the normal sequence of pleadings and trial.
OP(C).No.2401 of 2016 (O) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges Ext.P3, the order in OS No.939/2013 of the Sub Court, Chavakkad, directing court-fee treatment under Section 28 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The plaintiffs sought declarations of co-ownership over plaint A and B schedule properties and injunctions restraining defendants 2 and 3 from trespass and from alienating those properties, along with other reliefs to manage a temple governed by a family and hereditary rights. The petitioners contend the suit concerns a private family temple rather than a public religious endowment, and thus Section 28 (trust-property fee) is misapplied; the correct fee should be under Section 25 (ad valorem). The Respondents argue the land and temple form a religious endowment and that the matter concerns administration of a temple endowment; the court below held Section 28 applies. The High Court analyzes definitions of religious endowment, temple, and charitable endowment in the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, drawing on various precedents to determine whether the endowment is public or private and whether Section 28 can be invoked. The court ultimately sets aside the Ext.P3 order, holds that the plaint fee must be computed under Section 25, and allows amendment and payment of proper court fee within a time frame, while vacating the interim stay.
The motor accident claims arise from a 26.03.2007 death in which a car, owned by the deceased’s wife and insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd., was driven by the deceased at the time of the accident. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,13,500 in total compensation to the deceased’s adult children (the claimants) under Section 163A of the MV Act, with interest. The insurer challenged the award, contending the loss resulted from a self‑inflicted accident and that the policy—a package policy—did not impose liability on the insurer for such a driver; the Ext.B2 policy allegedly covered the owner‑cum‑driver only to Rs. 2 lakhs. The High Court, in a Division Bench, scrutinized whether liability could be imposed on the insurer in a self‑accident scenario. It relies on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sinitha (SC) to explain that, even though negligence need not be proved under Section 163A, the absence of Section 140(4) can permit the insurer to plead that negligence lies elsewhere, thereby avoiding liability. The court acknowledges United India Insurance v. Sunil Kumar (SC) as a later, unsettled authority and a Full Bench decision Oriental Insurance Co. v. Joseph, but ultimately holds that Sinitha remains the law under Article 141 of the Constitution. On that basis, the award is set aside insofar as the insurer is concerned, with the matter open to re‑examination if the reference in Sunil Kumar is decided in the claimants’ favour.
On 7 September 2002, Abdul Rasheed, travelling in a mini lorry on the Kollam–Alappuzha National Highway, suffered serious injuries after a collision with a lorry coming from the opposite direction. He filed a Motor Accidents Claims petition seeking Rs 12 lakh, later reduced to Rs 10 lakh. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, awarded Rs 3,62,500. Aggrieved, the appellant challenged the adequacy of the compensation, arguing that the permanent disability percentage, medical expenses, and loss of earnings had not been properly accounted for, and that the multiplier and heads of compensation were misapplied. The appellant’s injuries included fractures to the right leg and foot, left foot injuries, skin flap injuries, and later, multiple surgeries and amputations, with inpatient treatment spanning about 77 days. Disability certificates Exts X1–X2 fixed disability at 10% (Medical Board) and 15% (subsequently by the Medical Board at Kottayam). The High Court reassessed heads such as transportation, extra nourishment, bystander’s expenses, treatment expenses, and loss of earnings, applying a monthly income of Rs 4,000 and a multiplier of 14. The court increased the total compensation to Rs 4,84,700 and directed payment with 9% interest from the date of petition, following the apex court’s reasoning in Supe Dei (Smt.) & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2009) 4 SCC 513. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount within three months. The appeal was allowed with costs to the parties.
The Kerala High Court, hearing MACA No. 2269 of 2008, allowed an appeal challenging a MACT award that held the insurer not liable under Ext. B1. Deljith Paul, aged 22 and a headload worker, died in a forest road accident on 6.12.2003 while the lorry was engaged in loading/unloading teakwood logs. The Tribunal concluded the vehicle’s endorsement IMT 39 did not apply for lack of additional premium, and the policy was not liable since the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and not the owner or representative of goods. The appellants contended that the deceased was engaged under a contract of employment as a loading/unloading worker and was in the cabin in the course of his duties; Ext.A1 and Ext.A6 evidence supported this. The court examined policy terms—particularly the general exceptions and IMT endorsements 48, 17, 39—and concluded that the claimant’s evidence established a contract of employment, and the endorsement clause 4 of the policy would apply, making the insurer liable. Distinguishing Sanjeev Kumar Samrat, the court held Ext.B1 was not a ‘statutory-only’ policy and, on the facts, the deceased was covered. The court then re-assessed compensation for loss of dependency, funeral expenses, and love and affection using Sarla Verma’s multiplier and modern jurisprudence (Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh), enhancing the total to Rs.5,12,700 with 9% interest, directing deposit within three months by the insurer. Costs were allocated to the parties; the judgment emphasized that the policyholder’s burden included proving the contract of employment; the court’s findings rest on the forest-road context where a loader’s presence in the cabin was integral to the job.
This Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arises from an award of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act by the Claims Tribunal at North Paravur in OPMV 577/2008, dated 28-11-2013, in which the deceased Johnson, a motorcyclist, died following a collision with a Toyota Innova on 25.4.2008. The Insurance Company, as appellant, challenged the Tribunal’s substantial compensation to the widow, two minor children and the parents (the petitioners) who filed the claim. The central dispute revolved around the deceased’s monthly income and the consequential calculation of dependency compensation. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs 12,000 based on Ext. A6 and PW2 evidence, applied the standard 1/3 deduction for dependency, and adopted a multiplier of 14, leading to a high dependency loss figure. The insurer argued for deductions of tax and for limiting the income uplift; it also challenged the applicability of a 30% salary increment under the Sarala Verma principle, on grounds of lack of evidence of permanence in the job. The Court, while acknowledging the documentary evidence, held that tax components must be deducted and rejected the 30% enhancement as unsupported by evidence. The result was a modified total compensation of Rs 17,71,392, with a direction to deposit the amount within three months and to bear own costs on appeal. The judgment carries 9% interest from the petition date following Supe Dei and related authority.
This Motor Accident Claims Appeals (MACA) concerns the death of a 26-year-old youth who was a pillion rider on a motorcycle when a lorry collided with it on 17 February 2002. The claim petition OP No. 227/03 was tried with OP No. 245/03, culminating in a common verdict on 8 March 2010. The Tribunal held negligence in the ratio 75:25 between the lorry driver and the motorcycle rider and initially calculated compensation by notional monthly income of Rs 2,000, deducting one-third for personal expenses, yielding Rs 1,60,000, with a multiplier of 10 and additional amounts for love and affection (Rs 15,000), pain and suffering (Rs 10,000), ambulance charges (Rs 2,000) and funeral expenses (Rs 3,000), totaling Rs 1,90,000, to be paid by the insurers in the 75:25 ratio. The appellants contended the deceased’s actual income (Rs 6,000 per month) supported a higher figure and urged adoption of the Supreme Court standard multiplier. The High Court raised notional income to Rs 3,000 and, applying the multiplier of 17 as per Sarla Verma and its affirmation in Reshma Kumari, computed Rs 4,08,000, deducting Rs 1,60,000 already awarded to arrive at Rs 2,48,000. It further enhanced loss of love and affection to Rs 50,000 and funeral expenses to Rs 7,000, making total compensation Rs 2,90,000 with 9% interest from 25/4/03 until payment. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
OP(C).No. 355 of 2015 (O) This petition challenges suspension and the subsequent disciplinary process initiated by Dhanlaxmi Bank Limited. The petitioner, R. Nitya, a Chief Manager (under suspension) at the bank, contends that the proceedings violate natural justice and the bank’s own Regulations governing conduct and discipline. She alleges bias and personal interest of the 2nd defendant (the bank’s MD), with the 3rd defendant acting as disciplinary authority and the 4th defendant as Enquiry Officer; she asserts that she was coerced into giving a statement and that copies of documents were not immediately supplied, leading to an unfair process. According to her, her transfer from Regional Credit Head to a lower post and the subsequent suspension were stage-managed to “finish her off,” particularly after she reported irregularities in loan sanctioning involving persons in higher positions. The petition seeks declarations that the disciplinary proceedings are null and void and a decree for perpetual injunction against ongoing proceedings. The respondents contend the suit is not maintainable because the employment is contractual, not public service, and should be resolved by civil damages rather than specific relief. The High Court held that Dhanalaxmi Bank is a scheduled private bank, not a public institution; while natural justice applies to internal inquiries, a court cannot compel reinstatement in a purely contractual private employment. The petition is dismissed, with observations that the disciplinary process may proceed and the bank may consider changing the disciplinary authority if appropriate.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal filed by P. Santharam, the claimant and an advocate, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for injuries suffered in a road traffic accident on 8 September 2001. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,70,416 with 6% interest. The claimant produced extensive medical records (Exts. A1–A22) and a disability certificate (Ext. X1) showing 27% permanent disability, and sought enhancement based on post-award medical bills. He moved for admission of additional evidence (Exts. A23–A26) showing continuing treatment through subsequent years. The appellant argued that the compensation was grossly inadequate in light of his professional earnings as an advocate and the documented cost of future treatment, relying on precedents such as Velunni v. Vellakutty and Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh to justify the court’s power to enhance and to admit new evidence. The respondents argued that the Tribunal’s award was just and that post-award evidence should not be admitted. The Kerala High Court held that Order XLI CPC governs appeals from MACT awards and allowed the appeal in part, increasing compensation for pain, suffering, medical treatment and future expenses, and held the insurer liable to pay within two months with enhanced interest if delayed.
This High Court of Kerala Regular Second Appeal arises from two connected suits, OS 68/1993 and OS 134/1993, both concerning boundary disputes, possession and reliefs affecting partitioned land traced to Ext. B1 (27.10.1979) which divided 67 cents among seven co-owners. The appellant, G. Indira (plaintiff in OS 68/1993), sought permanent prohibitory injunction and possession of ten cents; the respondents Lalitha and Pushpangada Panicker contended against this claim. The two suits were jointly tried with separate issues and evidence: the trial court held that Indira failed to prove absolute possession of ten cents and dismissed OS 68/1993, and it also dismissed OS 134/1993 for non-joinder of necessary parties, although it found trespass in the boundary context. The lower appellate court later reversed in OS 134/1993 and granted a decree in the respondents’ favor, based on Commissioner's report and plan (Ext. C1). The appellant challenged the combined outcome in this RSA. The court examined the propriety of res judicata, noting that while the previous decree in OS 68/1993 was on merits, this does not automatically bar the subsequent decree, and ultimately held that the appeal is barred by res judicata. The judge concluded there is no merit in the arguments, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower appellate decree. The result preserves the respondents’ success in OS 134/1993 and ends Indira’s challenge to the boundary reliefs.
Noufal, the accused in C.C. No. 664/2010 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Kozhikode, seeks relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to waive his personal presence during the recording of evidence under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and to permit his counsel to respond in writing. The petitioner asserts he is abroad on employment and cannot obtain leave, and that he is already represented during the evidence stage; the court had previously allowed a Section 205 Cr.P.C. application for personal exemption, as recorded in Annexure A1. The prosecution evidence is complete and the matter is slated for 313 questioning. The State and police brief is not elaborated with detailed opposition in the text; instead, the court grounds its reasoning on established Supreme Court principles. The apex Court in Basavaraj R. Patil v. State of Karnataka and in Keya Mukherjee v. Magma Leasing Limited has recognized exceptional situations where the obligation to appear in person may be relaxed if accompanied by a credible affidavit detailing hardship, along with a mechanism by which the advocate may supply the answers to the 313 questions. The Kerala High Court, applying these principles, directs the petitioner to file a specific application in the trial court, with the requisite affidavit, and to consider dispensing with personal appearance in light of the demonstrated hardship, while ensuring that the accused personally signs the questionnaire and that no prejudice arises. The revision petition is allowed.
This Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arises from the award of a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam, in OPMV 150/2007, relating to a motorcycle accident on 20-11-2006 near Athirakkad. The appellant-petitioner V. Rajan challenges two aspects of the Tribunal’s award: (i) contributory negligence attributed to him for not possessing a driving license, and (ii) the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal held the appellant partly negligent because two minor children accompanied him, and because the police charge sheet targeted the jeep driver rather than the rider. It also reduced the disability percentage from 14% to 5% and adopted a modest income estimate. The appellant relies on Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh to argue that lack of license cannot by itself establish negligence absent rash driving. The Kerala High Court, citing Sudhir Kumar Rana, holds there is no finding of rash driving by the rider and that the police charge was against the other vehicle, not conclusively showing contributory negligence. It also relies on Harinarayan v. Sajjan Singh (and related earlier judgments) to reject the Tribunal’s 40% fault against the appellant. The court revises the income to Rs. 4,000/month, upholds a 14% whole-body disability, and increases pain and suffering, amenities and other heads, resulting in total enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,86,600 with 9% interest. The appeal is allowed; the insurer is directed to deposit the amount within three months, and costs follow.
Murali, a pillion rider, sustained severe injuries in a motor-vehicle accident on 28-02-2003 while travelling on a National Highway. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,23,151 with 9% interest from the date of application. The insurer countered that Ext. B1 was an act-only policy covering statutory risk only, thereby excluding gratuitous passengers; the appellant argued that Tariff Advisory Committee instructions should be read into the policy and urged reliance on Bhagyalakshmi and other decisions, along with Oriental Insurance Co. v. Daniel, and subsequently on the Tribunal’s reliance on Tilak Singh and Sudhakaran. The appellant pressed that gratuitous passengers demand broader coverage through an extended or comprehensive policy, citing various decisions and TAC guidelines. The court examined the evolving law under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Insurance Act, noting that subsequent Full Bench and Supreme Court rulings have restricted coverage for gratuitous passengers under act-only policies, unless an extended policy is procured. It held that TAC instructions have no binding force and that Mathew Joseph and Celinamma establish that policy coverage for gratuitous passengers is contingent on a broader policy. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, enhanced compensation to Rs. 4,17,050 with 9% interest, and directed the appellant to pay any court fee before the Tribunal. The insurer was held not liable under Ext. B1.
MACA.No. 1856 of 2011; MACA.No. 1947 of 2011 Two MACA appeals arise from a common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam, relating to injuries sustained by Hareesh.T.A. (rider) and a co-claimant (pillion rider) in a collision with an auto-rickshaw driven by the first respondent and insured by the second respondent. The Tribunal held the rider in MACA 1856 40% negligent and reduced compensation for the co-claimant in MACA 1947 proportionately; it awarded Rs. 19,595 and Rs. 28,010 respectively as compensation, with the “just compensation” fixed at Rs. 32,660 and Rs. 46,680. The appellants challenged the awards, arguing that there was no independent evidence to prove negligence by Hareesh.T.A. and that mere lack of a driving licence cannot by itself prove contributory negligence. The insurer contended that the accident resulted from the rider's negligence and argued the driver lacked a licence; this court examined the material, including Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh and Prajesh Kumar v. Saji John, and held that absence of a licence cannot per se establish negligence. The High Court then recalculated the quantum of compensation, applying a higher income level (Rs. 5,000 per month) and greater disability, increasing amounts for pain and suffering, loss of amenities and extra nourishment, and determining continuing disability with a 17 multiplier. It also held that interest is payable at 9% per annum. Consequently, the appeals were allowed in part: the negligence finding against the MACA 1856 appellant was vacated, and additional sums of Rs. 32,040 and Rs. 42,320 were awarded in MACA 1856 and 1947 respectively, with 9% interest on the total.
This Kerala High Court appeal arises from an MACT award under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of Khadeeja, a pillion rider in motorcycle KL-47/7705 on 30-09-2009 on the Vypin-Munambam road. The Additional MACT, North Paravur, held the insured vehicle liable and awarded about ₹68,335 (rounded to ₹69,000) with 8% interest. The claimants, as legal heirs, challenged the adequacy of compensation under various heads, arguing that the deceased was aged 65 and either earned through poultry farming or contributed as a homemaker; they proposed a notional monthly income of ₹3,000, implying a notional annual income of ₹36,000. Under Section 163A, the Second Schedule prescribes structured compensation, including a death head with an additional ₹2,000 funeral expenses, ₹5,000 loss of consortium (if spouse), ₹2,500 loss of estate, and ₹15,000 for medical expenses, with the dependency head resulting in substantial sums after deductions. The appellants argued the Tribunal’s calculation under the Second Schedule under-represented the loss of dependency (₹33,335) and sought higher figures. The court notes that the Second Schedule has become outdated and, following the Supreme Court’s Puttamma v. KL Narayana Reddy guidance, directs a fixed compensation of ₹1,50,000 in such cases and awards an additional balance of ₹81,000 to be paid with 9% interest until realization, with the insurer directed to deposit within one month. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Kristhu Jayanthi Hospital, a private hospital in Kochi, challenged two notices for interest and damages under the ESI Act after being brought under coverage. The Employees’ State Insurance Court at Alappuzha had held that, in light of Ext.P1 directions accompanying a pending exemption petition, there was no wilful default or mens rea to delay payment and quashed the damages demand, while the interest demand was not entirely set aside. The hospital had remitted contributions for 7/2007 to 9/2008 on 27.9.2008 and 17.10.2008 and argued that the Ext.P1 directions created a mechanism by which the delayed payment could not be treated as default. The ESIC contended that liability to pay interest is statutory and cannot be waived, citing Goetze India Ltd. v. E.S.I. Corporation, which explained that interest under Section 39 of the Act and Regulations 31 and 31A is statutory. The Kerala High Court, while recognizing the Ext.P1 directions and the exemption process, concluded that the ESI Court’s quashing of interest was erroneous and restored the liability to pay interest while setting aside the damages demand. The court ruled that the Ext.P3 notice for interest is valid and requires compliance, with costs awarded to the parties. The decision clarifies the balance between exemptions, timely contributions, and statutory interest obligations.
