On 10.3.2002, around 2:15 pm, a motor vehicle accident occurred near Pola Theatre, S.N. Puram, involving a motorbike KL8/M 64 and a bus. Shinil, the motorcyclist, sustained grievous injuries and died on 27.5.2002. Claimants in OP(MV) No.2610/2002 sought compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, alleging the bus driver negligent and seeking damages under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Insurance Company contested the claim, arguing that no accident occurred or that Shinil was merely a pillion rider on another bike; it contended that Biju rode the motorbike and Shinil was not the owner of the vehicle, and that the spot and road-width evidence suggested the bike may have been on the wrong side. No convincing evidence was presented of the bus driver’s negligence. The Tribunal found negligence by the bus driver and partly allowed the claim for property damage in OP 3925/2003, awarding Rs.11,570. The insurer appealed, challenging the negligence finding and the quantum. The court, citing New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal, held that a police charge sheet after due investigation can be treated as evidence of negligence against the indictee. On quantum in MACA 1041/2008, the court re-fixed the deceased’s income and heads of damage, totaling Rs.7,88,200, directing deposit by the insurer within three months. The insurer’s appeals (MACA 479/2008 and 481/2008) were dismissed, while MACA 1041/2008 was allowed.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA) before the Kerala High Court challenging an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Kottayam in O.P.(MV) No.1458/2007. The first respondent registered owner of the offending vehicle contends he should not be liable for compensation where the vehicle had been sold and possession passed to the transferee, and where the transfer was not entered in the registration records or accompanied by timely intimation to the authorities. The Tribunal’s award held the registered owner and the driver (the sixth respondent) liable, directing the appellant to pay compensation but permitting recovery from the transferee. The court examines the statutory framework—the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 definitions (Section 2(30) on ‘owner’), transfer of ownership (Section 50), and mandatory insurance provisions (Sections 146-147, with penalties under Sections 177 and 196)—as well as leading precedents such as Jose v. Chacko, P.P. Mohammed v. K. Rajappan, Pushpa @ Leela v. Shakuntala, Sreekumar v. Abdeen, National Insurance Co. v. Deepa Devi, Rajasthan SRTC v. Kailash Nath Kothari, and Deepa Devi. The bench concludes that the statutory definition of ‘owner’ must be read with the context and that mere transfer does not absolve the registered owner of liability where the records were not updated and/or insurance was required. The appeal is dismissed with no costs, upholding the Tribunal’s approach of liability coupled with possible recovery from the transferee.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1510 of 2002 The Kerala High Court, in a criminal revision petition by M. Usman, challenges the concurrent convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the concurrent sentence of three months’ imprisonment plus compensation of Rs. 18,000 awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the Addl. Sessions Court (Ad hoc) Kalpetta and the JMC Mananthavady STC. The revision petition contends that the revisional court should not re‑appreciate the evidence unless perversity is shown, and presses that the complainant established execution and issuance of the cheque, with the revision petitioner failing to rebut the presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act. The petitioner also argues for leniency in sentence, noting financial hardship and proposing payment of compensation within a set period. The court references Kaushalya Devi Massand v. Roopkishore (AIR 2011 SC 2566) and Vijayan v. Baby (2011(4) KLT 355) to emphasize that S.138 offences are civil‑like with criminal overlay and that restitution/compensation should be prioritized and rendered practically. Ultimately, the court holds that the substantive sentence is disproportionate and reduces it to simple imprisonment for one day till rising of the court, while directing payment of Rs.18,000 to the legal heirs within three months, with a further appearance by 11/09/2015 and a default provision of one month imprisonment. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
This appeal arises from a motor accident claims case where the appellants seek higher compensation for the death of a 54-year-old scooter rider in a May 2011 collision with an autorickshaw (KL-41/D-4251). The Tribunal awarded Rs 7,99,822, with the deceased's contributory negligence fixed at 5% and the compensation calculated after applying a cap of Rs 20 lakh under the Motor Vehicles Act. The claimants contended that the driver of the autorickshaw was negligent and that the deduction of 5% was erroneous; they also pressed for higher monthly income and enhanced heads of compensation, including loss of dependency, loss of consortium and love and affection. The Insurance Company contested negligence on the part of the autorickshaw driver and highlighted the deceased's lack of a valid driving licence and helmet, along with riding without proper distance. The Tribunal relied on Exts A1–A12 and drew adverse inferences for nonproduction of the licence. It concluded the deceased contributed to the accident by riding behind the autorickshaw without safe distance and without a licence, but still awarded 90–95% of the aggregate. The High Court, examining the record, upheld the Tribunal's determinations, fixed the monthly income at Rs 5,000, and held that no enhancement was warranted; the appeal was dismissed.
This appeal arises from a Kerala High Court decision modifying the quantum of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The deceased, Sathya Rajan, aged 54, was a Junior Telecom Officer who died in a road traffic accident on 10 March 2006 while riding a motorcycle. The Tribunal found the driver negligent and computed compensation by applying a monthly income of Rs 20,000, deducting one-third for personal expenses, and adopting a pension of 50% posthumously, yielding a dependency figure of Rs 7,12,000 and a total award of Rs 7,40,000. The appellants contended that the method of calculating the multiplicand was incorrect and pressed for higher awards for funeral expenses, loss of estate, and damages for loss of consortium and love and affection, in light of Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh and other verdicts. They further argued that a fixed, uniform multiplier should be applied over the entire dependency period rather than a split multiplier, and that the date-of-death salary should govern the calculation. The insurance company argued that retirement in BSNL reduces post-retirement income and urged fair but not extravagant compensation. The High Court re-examined the authorities, preferring the Sarla Verma guidelines and Susamma Thomas’ principles, adopting a uniform multiplier of 11, reworking net income with tax deductions (as per Indira Srivasthava) and pension, and awarding enhanced amounts: Rs. 25,000 funeral, Rs. 50,000 loss of estate, Rs. 1,00,000 each for consortium and love and affection, plus Rs. 10,000 pain and suffering. Interest at 9% p.a., deposit within three months. The appeal is allowed with no costs, total Rs 17,74,280.
The petitioner, Ammini, wife of Mathew, challenged a confiscation under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 initiated after her lorry carrying timber was seized by forest officers on grounds that the timber was forest produce from government land in Chittar-Seethathodu village. The Divisional Forest Officer issued a 61A confiscation order, which was upheld by the District Court in CMA No.27/2009, prompting this Article 227 petition. The petitioner argued twofold: (i) none of the contraband forest produce was transported in her vehicle; (ii) the items transported cannot be forest produce if they were trees cut and removed from land assigned to an individual by the Government, with Exts.P3 (patta in the name of Kesavan Narayanan) and Ext.P4 (provisional patta) central to this claim. Exts.P3 and P4 show a government assignment (land under the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960) with conditions, including that the Government retains rights over trees within the grant; the schedule lists various species but many entries are struck off, leaving only two Rosewood saplings as government property. The petitioner contends the enforcement under Rule 3 of the 1995 Rules and the Act is misapplied since none of the scheduled trees were seized from her lorry."
The Kerala High Court hears MACA No. 2091 of 2013 challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal’s award of Rs 8,70,500 for the death of Jithin Devasia in 2009. The appellants claim that compensation is grossly inadequate given the deceased’s bright academic record and expected software career; they contend the tribunal undervalued income and future prospects. The accident occurred on 25.9.09 when the deceased, a student in electronics & communication, riding a motorcycle KL-33/7320, was hit by a car and died the same day. The Tribunal fixed income at Rs 7,500 per month, added 30% for future prospects, and deducted 50% for living expenses, applying a multiplier based on the parents’ age. The appellants produced Exts. A6–A23 to show the deceased’s merit, seeking a higher notional income (around Rs 40,000). The insurer argued notional income should suffice and supported the tribunal’s approach. The High Court re-evaluated the evidence, following Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi and Sarla Verma principles, and held that the deceased’s income could be reasonably raised to Rs 15,000 per month, with 50% deduction and a multiplier of 18 (age 21). The court awarded Rs 16,20,000 for loss of dependency, Rs 1,00,000 for love and affection, Rs 25,000 for funeral, and Rs 10,000 for pain and suffering, totaling Rs 17,81,500, plus 9% interest. The helmet deduction was reversed and delay interest was disqualified for the condoned period. The appeal is allowed; no costs.
M.A.C.A. No. 2151 of 2015 This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA) from the Kerala High Court, concerning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod, in OPMV 522/2013, after the death of a 13-year-old boy in a road traffic collision involving a bus owned, driven and insured by the respondents. The insurer-appellant challenges the Tribunal’s total award of ₹7,14,000 under multiple heads: love and affection (₹1,50,000), transportation (₹3,000), funeral (₹10,000), clothing (₹1,000), pain and suffering (₹10,000), and dependency (₹5,40,000). The Tribunal held the bus driver negligent. The insurer argues the award lacks justification, noting the deceased was a student with no income and that the Tribunal used a notional income of ₹4,500 per month and the 2nd Schedule’s historical multiplicand should inform quantum for a child; it cites Kishan Gopal to contend for a lower figure. The High Court discusses relevant precedents: Kishan Gopal (30,000/year for a child); Mallikarjun’s disability scales; Kumari Kiran (children cannot be treated as non-earning under the statute, warranting non-pecuniary heads); and Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (funeral expenses potentially higher). Ultimately, the Court deems the insurer’s contention unfounded, holds the Tribunal’s holistic award reasonable, and dismisses the appeal, leaving the Tribunal’s award intact.
The High Court of Kerala heard ITA Nos. 141, 145 and 146 of 2014 arising from a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, which had allowed the assessees’ appeals and reinstated the Assessing Officer’s orders disallowing deductions claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(vi) read with section 80P(1) of the Income Tax Act. The appellants are three cooperative societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, which sought deduction on the basis that their income derived from the collective disposal of the labour of their members falls within 80P(2)(a)(vi). The Revenue contends that the income primarily arises from sale of toddy and related activities, not from direct collective disposal of labour by members, and thus is ineligible for the deduction. The court examines the statutory text of section 80P, noting that the deduction arises where income includes income referred to in sub-section (2) and the sub-clauses, particularly (vi) concerning collective disposal of the labour, apply only to income attributable to the action of the members’ labour. It cites Orissa High Court’s Nilagiri decision and other precedents to discuss the meaning of collective disposal, but ultimately finds these authorities not controlling for the present facts. The court holds that the assessees are not eligible for the benefit and dismisses the appeals, upholding the ITAT’s order. The decision emphasizes that income from sale of toddy and incidental labour does not constitute income from collective disposal of labour. It confirms that the appeals are dismissed.
ITA No. 83 of 2014; ITA No. 86 of 2014 These appeals relate to penalties under sections 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act for alleged contraventions of sections 269SS and 269T in the assessment year 2005-2006. The assessee-filed a loss and the assessment order dated 6 November 2007 concluded that cash deposits from and repayments to other persons violated 269SS/269T, triggering penalties under 271D and 271E and these penalties were confirmed by the CIT(A) and Tribunal. The core legal questions were (a) whether penalties were initiated within the period of limitation under section 275(1)(c); (b) whether there was reasonable cause under section 273B that would bar penalty; and (c) whether cash receipts from partners/sister concerns could be treated as loans or deposits under 269SS/269T. The appellant contends that penalty initiation is by the Joint Commissioner (not AO) and that initiation occurs only when a notice is issued, making the penalties time-barred; it also argues that cash transactions were bonafide business arrangements and that there was reasonable cause for not using bank channels. The revenue argues penalties were correctly imposed; initiation by the Joint Commissioner is proper; and the cash transactions were loans/deposits. The Kerala High Court affirms the concurrent factual findings and holds that penalty initiation and limitation were properly considered; the appeals are dismissed and the penalties upheld.
FAO Nos. 243 of 2014; FAO No. 244 of 2014 This High Court of Kerala, in FAO Nos. 243 and 244 of 2014, heard appeals by the second and third defendants from an order of the Subordinate Judge, Hosdurg, dated 23 May 2014, rejecting their applications under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC for temporary injunction in O.S. No. 57 of 2013. The suit, filed by the plaintiffs (respondents), seeks a declaration that the plaint schedule property belongs to them absolutely, possession and enjoyment, and a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining trespass and interference. The appellants contended that they, as purchasers from the first defendant, and/or their predecessors-in-interest, have exclusive possession of parts of the property and that the Land Tribunal proceedings and documents (Exts. A1–A7, X1) establish their title and possession. The High Court examined whether the appellants had made a prima facie case for injunction and whether the documents sufficiently prove exclusive possession. It found serious issues about the identity of the predecessor-in-interest (Kunjahammad) and whether the documents emanate from the same person, noting defects in the transfer documents and lack of corroborating possession records. The court relied on established principles from Wander Ltd. v. Antox India and related precedents to assess discretionary relief, concluded that the trial court’s reasoning was not arbitrary or perverse, and dismissed the appeals. The judgment emphasizes that the suit should proceed to trial, untrammeled by the observations herein and without cost liability."
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal from the Kerala High Court challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Wayanad’s award of Rs. 4,29,628 as compensation to the claimant for injuries sustained in a motor-vehicle accident dated 5.11.2009. The MACT, in its award dated 28.11.2013, directed the second respondent insurer to deposit the awarded amount with interest and costs and also permitted it to recover the amount from the insured because the bike involved was allegedly driven by Ryju Mathew, a person who did not hold a driving licence at the relevant time. The appellant (owner) contends that the third respondent, impleaded during the proceedings, was the actual driver and possessed a licence, and that the insurer’s liability should not override the owner’s responsibility. The defense filed by the insurer argued lack of a valid licence by the driver, and questioned the quantum of compensation. The MACT found that Ryju Mathew was driving and was negligent, relying on the charge sheet and evidence; it upheld disability assessment at 30% and computed damages. The High Court, after reviewing the pleadings, evidence, and the legal framework (including deposit requirements under the Motor Vehicles Act), upheld the MACT conclusions and dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the statutory deposit requirement, citing Pareeth v. Janaiya as binding. The appeal was dismissed with no costs.
OP(C).No. 747 of 2017 (O) The case concerns an original petition filed under Section 92 CPC challenging an order granting leave to institute a suit against public charities alleging breach of express or constructive trust created for a public purpose. The court examines whether the lower court properly satisfied the requirements for leave, noting the longstanding dispute about whether leave in Section 92 proceedings is governed by the plaint or by the leave application. The petitioners argue that leave should be determined from the plaint allegations, not the leave notice, citing established authorities that emphasize examining the plaint to permit entry, while the respondents contend that leave and the plaint are effectively the same inquiry. The judgment surveys precedents, including P.V. Mathew and Others v. K.V. Thomas and Others (AIR 1983 Kerala 5) and Charan Singh v. Darshan Singh (1975) 1 SCC 298, to uphold the plaint-grounded view, but acknowledges a contrary view in Amrithakumari v. Ramanathan (1998 (2) KLT 305). Ultimately, the court remands the matter to the District Court to consider the plaint allegations and determine whether leave should be granted, setting aside the impugned order and directing proceedings to resume with a deadline. The decision is delivered by a Single Judge of this High Court on 12 April 2017.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2990 of 2003 This is a Kerala High Court criminal revision petition (Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2990 of 2003) challenging concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) and the sentence recorded by the Sessions Court Thrissur in Cr. Appeal No. 505/2002, arising from the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thrissur, proceedings ST 2009/2000. The revision petitioner, K.K. Sivadas, contends that re-appreciation of evidence is permissible only in perversity, but points to no such perversity in the appellate findings, and argues that the punishment is disproportionate to the offense; he seeks leniency and the opportunity to pay compensation. The complainant/first respondent contends that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt and that the presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act stands unrebutted, supporting conviction. The respondents–Kalpaka Finance and the State–oppose a fresh re‑weighing of evidence. The court cites Kaushalya Devi Massand v. Roopkishore (AIR 2011 SC 2566) and Vijayan v. Baby (2011(4) KLT 355) to emphasize that 138 NI Act offences are quasi‑civil in nature with criminal overtones and that restitution/compensation should take priority over punitive measures. In light of these principles and the petitioner’s willingness to pay within three months, the court reduces the substantive sentence from one month to one day’s imprisonment until rising of the court and directs Rs.45,000 as compensation to be paid within three months, with a further appearance on 26.10.2013 and default consequences.
MFA(FT) No.128/2014; MFA(FT) No.129/2014; Cross Objection No.125/2017 Common judgment by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court (Harilal, J. and A.M. Babu, J.J.) rendered on 8 December 2017 in MFA(FT) Nos.128/2014, 129/2014 and Cross Objection No.125/2017. The appeals arise from OA Nos.20/2010 and 21/2010 before the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode, under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, challenging a declaration that the petition schedule land is not a private forest or is exempt under sections 3(2) or 3(3) of the Vesting Act. The State of Kerala and the Custodian of Vested Forests (appellants) contend that the property is part of the large vested forest complex “Peradasserymala Elamala” and that the Forest Tribunal failed to follow the statutory enquiry prescribed by sections 2 and 3 of the Vesting Act, relying instead on dictionary definitions of “forest.” The respondents claim the land is not a forest or falls under private forest exemptions, supported by documentary evidence and the MPPF Act records. The court finds that the Tribunal conducted an improper enquiry under the Vesting Act, misapplied relevant Full Bench authorities (notably Moosa Haji and Menon A.K.), and erred in relying on obiter dicta from the Abdu decision. It sets aside the Tribunal’s findings, remits the matters for fresh enquiry with opportunity to adduce evidence, and directs disposal within six months. The appeals are allowed to that extent.
MFA.No. 4 of 2016 (B); MFA.No. 31 of 2017 This is a Kerala High Court appeal (MFA Nos. 4 of 2016 (B) and 31 of 2017) arising from an Employees’ Compensation Commissioner order in E.C.C. No. 25/2014 (W.C.C. No. 92/2002) at Peermade, Idukki. A worker died while painting a Post Office building; compensation was granted to the legal heirs against the second and third opposite parties (principal employers) with a rider that they could recover from the first opposite party (the contractor). The appellants—two senior postal authorities—challenge the order, disputing the status of the deceased as an employee of the principal parties and the applicability of Section 12 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. The respondents contend the deceased was employed through the contractor and that the work (building maintenance/painting) falls within the principal’s business, creating a nexus and triggering initial liability under Section 12. The court elaborates on the scope of Section 12, emphasizing that the principal’s initial liability arises where there is a nexus between the employee’s work and the principal’s trade or business, and that liability to indemnify the contractor depends on the contract terms and default, with the contract not produced being fatal to Section 12(2) claims. Ultimately, the appeals are dismissed, upholding the EC Commissioner’s order, with 12% interest, and without costs.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case filed by six petitioners seeking release of the attachment of property ordered by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Aluva, in LP No.112/2013 arising from ST No.138/2012, in which the second petitioner is the sole accused for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners contend that they are six co-owners of 3.95 ares of land in Re.Sy.No.142/11, Thiruvankulam Village, and that the lower court’s attachment was not properly issued under Cr.P.C. Sections 82 and 83. They rely on the Apex Court’s judgment in Dashrath Rupsing Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 9 SCC 129, arguing that the complaint was returned for re-presentation in 2014 and no proceedings are pending, thus entitling them to relief. The 1st petitioner obtained an order lifting attachment for his share (Anx-V) following this Court’s Anx-IV order in Crl.M.C.No.7130/2016; the 2nd petitioner sought recall of warrants (Crl.M.P.No.1/2017) but was dismissed. The petition seeks relief for other co-owners as well, and asks the Magistrate to decide afresh in light of the documents (Anx-III to Anx-IX). The matter was disposed of with directions to the Magistrate to consider separate applications within three weeks.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal appeal by Biju challenging a 2011 judgment of conviction under Section 302 IPC (murder) and Section 201 IPC (causing disappearance of evidence), arising from SC No. 442/2002 disposed by the Court of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur. Rekha, a young woman who had an alleged love affair with the accused, vanished on 7 April 2000. Her dead body was later recovered from a pit, and the prosecution case tied the murder to the accused’s alleged intent to sexually assault Rekha after she refused him. The trial relied heavily on circumstantial evidence: eyewitness accounts placing the accused with Rekha near Peruvanam temple, the accused himself showing the place where the body lay, and the recovery of jewelry and other articles under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as well as the postmortem evidence indicating a penetrating pelvic injury as the probable cause of death. The charge framed, however, stated throttling as the cause of death, which the defense argued was inconsistent with medical evidence. The High Court, applying the Willie Slaney doctrine on procedural irregularities, held that although the charge did not perfectly match the evidence, there was no prejudice to the accused; the information, evidence, and defense were adequate to a fair trial, and no acquittal was warranted on this ground. The appeal was dismissed; the conviction and life imprisonment were upheld. The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of two judges, confirming the trial court’s judgment.
ITA 258 of 2014; ITA 259 of 2014 Beacon Projects Pvt. Ltd., a builder, executed construction agreements with multiple buyers for flats, whereby the builder constructed and transferred an undivided share in land and undertook construction on behalf of the purchasers. Payments were received in instalments, with a forfeiture clause if a purchaser defaulted, and subsequent resale to new purchasers at higher prices. When some purchasers opted out, the appellant refunded the excess payments received, after adjusting with sums from new buyers. In AY 2012-13 and 2013-14, the appellant debited in its P&L under the head “indirect expenses” the refunds of excess payments. The Assessing Officer treated these refunds as interest on deposits liable to TDS under section 194A, and held the appellant in default under section 201. The First Appellate Authority reversed, but the Tribunal reversed the FA’s order. The Kerala High Court held that the sums refunded do not constitute “interest” within the meaning of section 2(28A) of the Income Tax Act because there is no debtor–creditor relationship and the payments are refunds arising from the parties’ arrangements during the sale of units, not charges for borrowed money or a debt incurred. Consequently, there is no obligation to deduct tax at source or to treat the refunds as interest. The appeals are allowed and the Tribunal’s order is set aside."
This is an appeal under MACA No.3013 of 2008 arising from an award of compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vadakara in O.P.(MV) No.1101 of 2005 (dated 15-09-2008). The claimant, P. M. Rajith, sustained multiple injuries on 4 July 2005 when the motorcycle on which he was a pillion rider collided with a stay wire of the Electricity Board. The Tribunal held the rider negligent and treated the vehicle’s insurer as not liable, observing that the Ext.X1 policy was a liability-only policy and did not cover pillion riders for additional premium. It awarded Rs.79,014 under various heads together with 6% interest from the date of petition and Rs.2,000 costs. The claimant sought enhanced compensation in the appeal. The appellant contends that the insurer’s denial of liability (and the adequacy of quantum) is erroneous and relies on statutory principles and judicial guidance for computation of compensation. The respondents argued that the policy exclusions and lack of premium coverage for pillion riders justify insurer exoneration and that negligence findings were correctly apportioned. The High Court, while upholding liabilities to some extent, re-evaluates the quantum, fixes the petitioner’s notional monthly income at Rs.4,500, applies the multiplier 16 per Sarla Verma, and awards an additional Rs.32,800 (comprising Rs.22,800 for disability and Rs.10,000 for loss of earnings) beyond what the Tribunal granted, with 8% interest from the petition date. It holds the insurer not liable and permits recovery of the enhanced amount against the owner, with no costs."
