This is a bail application (BA No.5172 of 2025) before the Kerala High Court filed by the sole applicant-accused Sree Vishnu in Crime No.90/2025 of Chalakkudy Police Station, Thrissur, under sections 126(2), 115(2) and 109 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The prosecution contends that on 25.01.2025 at about 10:30 PM during a procession at Pariyaram Church, the defacto complainant and his friends were assaulted after an enmity with accused Nos.1 and 2; allegedly, accused Nos.3 to 12 were summoned to the scene and one of the accused stabbed the complainant and his companions, with other accused punching and stamping them; co-accused were reportedly released on bail. The petitioner has been in custody since 22.02.2025. He submits willingness to comply with any stringent conditions the court may impose. The State contends against bail, highlighting the gravity and nature of the alleged offences. The court previously declined bail in BA No.3078/2025, but after considering the facts and ongoing detention, and guided by well-settled bail jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, the judge allows bail with conditions. The decision cites Chidambaram, Jalaluddin Khan, Manish Sisodia and Anzar Azeez to emphasise the bail principle, while reserving power to cancel bail on breach of conditions.
CRL.A. No. 140 of 2014 (D) This Kerala High Court appeal concerns the murder of a young wife by her husband inside their home on the early hours of 7 September 2009. The appellant, Martin, was convicted under section 302 IPC by the Vth Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam, on the basis of circumstantial evidence, as there were no eye-witnesses. The prosecution relied on an extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the accused to PW1, a close relative, with FIS registered within an hour of the incident corroborating the confession. The case also rested on physical evidence: MO1 knife found near the dead body, MO2/MO3 (bed sheet and nighty) and MO4 pants stained with the victim’s blood, along with post-mortem findings detailing fatal neck injuries. The defense argued the absence of direct evidence, potential inconsistencies in timings, and questioned the reliability and corroboration of the extra-judicial confession, as well as the chain of custody of the incriminating articles. The trial court accepted the confession under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, and the High Court cites Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra and State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar to discuss the burden of proof and presumptions in cases of homicide inside a private residence. It holds that the circumstances, when viewed together with the confession and medical evidence, point to guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal is dismissed, and the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC are affirmed.
This High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, heard Crl.R.P. No.725/2022, a criminal revision petition filed by three accused challenging an order granting police custody for 12 days in Crime No.586/2022 of Kadavanthra Police Station. The offences alleged are Sections 120B, 364, 302, 201 read with 34 IPC. The prosecution contends the accused murdered and mutilated two women as part of a ritualistic human sacrifice aimed at financial gain. The investigation sought police custody of the accused, which the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VIII granted after hearing both sides. The petitioners argued the order lacked sufficient reasons, violated the safeguard on liberty, and did not adequately consider the right to meet with counsel during custody. The Director General of Prosecution defended the order, asserting peculiar circumstances and the necessity of a broader investigation. The High Court noted the gravity of the crime and the detailed 22-point application supporting custody, and while acknowledging the solemnity of detention powers, ultimately dismissed the revision petition, finding no illegality or impropriety in the lower court’s order. The judge directed limited rights to consult counsel during custody for specific times on alternate days, with counsel not present during interrogation.
The petitioner, Akhila Kerala Mavilan Samajam (through its Kasaragod district body), filed this writ petition challenging the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Act, 2013 (No.24 of 2013), which added Marati (of Hosdurg and Kasaragod taluks) to Kerala's Scheduled Tribes list. The petition contends that the amendment, made under Article 342 of the Constitution, is ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 and void, and seeks quashing the amendment and directing exclusion of Marati from the ST list. The respondents include the Union of India, State of Kerala, National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, Registrar General of India, KIRTADS, and the Kerala State Commission for SC/ST. The court notes the limited jurisdiction of the High Court in matters concerning inclusion/exclusion in the ST list and emphasizes that Parliament alone can alter the Presidential Order issued under Article 342(1). It relies on Mannan Vannan Samudaya Sangham v. State of Kerala (Full Bench) and previous writ petitions (including W.P.(C) No.27770/2012 and the Supreme Court’s order in W.P.(C) No.995 of 2013) to justify its stance. Ultimately, the court dismisses the petition, reiterating that the constitutionally vested power to amend the ST list lies with Parliament, not the courts.
W.P. (C) No. 18987 of 2023 The petitioners, devotees of Mullakkal Sree Rajarajeswari Temple under the Travancore Devaswom Board, petitioned under Article 226 for mandamus to require the Board to consider Ext.P1 and to appoint an ad-hoc Temple Advisory Committee for Mullakkal temple, which is without a functioning Temple Advisory Committee. The temple is scheduled to conduct Kodi Archana, a ritual performed once in 12 years, from 17 July 2023 to 16 August 2023. Ext.P2 is a judgment dated 02 March 2023 in W.P.(C) No. 30702 of 2022 directing formation of a Temple Advisory Committee via elections among the members of the ‘registered mandalam’, auditing of accounts, and timely conduct of elections. Petitioners contend that despite Ext.P2 directions, no committee has been constituted and governance and rites are at risk. On 12.06.2023, the Standing Counsel stated that the 3rd respondent had issued a notice dated 08.06.2023 to convene the general body of registered mandalam on 21.06.2023. The court examined the Travancore Devaswom Board Act, 1950 provisions (Section 3, 15A, 31, 31A) and the Temple Advisory Committee Rules (Clauses 2, 3, 5, 11), noting statutory duties to ensure prompt rites and institutional upkeep. The court ultimately disposed of the petition with directions to issue a circular to initiate elections and to ensure timely conduct of Kodi Archana, directing expeditious steps by the Board within a month and acknowledging that the 3rd respondent had convened the meeting on 21.06.2023.
BA Nos. 7545 and 7912 of 2022 This is a Kerala High Court bail decision under Section 438 CrPC arising from Crime No. 3 of 2016 registered by the CBCID Anti-Piracy Cell, Trivandrum, involving alleged custodial torture and elephant poaching-related offences by forest officials. Petitioners across two bail applications are forest officers (ranging from Controlling Officer to Section Forest Officers) accused of involvement in a large-scale elephant poaching operation that allegedly yielded 18 elephants and substantial ivory. Respondent No.2, the defacto complainant, was arrested in 2015 and subsequently claimed ill-treatment while in custody; the case traces a broad investigative sweep, including seizures of ivory, artifacts, and weapons. The court evaluated whether anticipatory bail was warranted given the stage of investigation and the petitioners’ cooperation. Citing the constitutional backdrop (Article 21) and well-established bail principles, the court underscored that bail is a rule and jail is an exception, with no inexorable formula for its grant. After examining affidavits, medical reports, and the absence of initial complaints of ill-treatment, the court found a prima facie case for bail and granted anticipatory bail with conditions: bond of Rs 1,00,000 and two sureties, and an obligation to appear before the Investigating Officer, while prohibiting witness tampering. The order emphasizes proportionality, liberty, and the need to support ongoing investigation.
This Regular First Appeal (RFA No.168 of 2009) arises from a suit for specific performance of Ext.A1, an agreement dated 02.06.2005 for sale of 23.85 cents of property. The trial court declined specific performance, instead granting the alternate relief of return of the advance sale consideration and denying the relief under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. The six-month period for performance expired on 02.12.2005, and the plaintiff paid a total advance of ₹15 lakhs, while the balance consideration was about ₹27 lakhs. The defendant allegedly cleared the subsisting liabilities on the property with the bank, evidenced by Ext.B7 (bank certificate) showing loan closure on 28.11.2005, well within the stipulated period. The plaintiff (appellant) contends that the contract contained reciprocal promises and that readiness and willingness to perform arise when the other party clears encumbrances; she relied on sections 51-52 of the Contract Act and judgments including Saradamani Kandappan and Ors. v. S.Rajalakshmi and Ors. (AIR 2011 SC 3234) and P.D. Souza v. Shondrilo Naidu (AIR 2004 SC 4472), with Faizal Eroth & Anr. v. Venkalath Raveendran & Anr. (2013(3) KLT 1041) cited in support. The respondents argue plaintiff failed to show readiness within the period; defendant performed; the trial court correctly exercised its discretion under Section 20 and the appeal is to be dismissed. The High Court upheld the trial court’s stance, confirming the decree for return of advance sale consideration with 9% interest and a charge over the property, and dismissed the appeal.
WP(C) No. 28461/2018 (and connected cases) This batch of writ petitions, heard by a single judge of the Kerala High Court, challenges KSRTC’s 2018 termination orders and seeks regularisation of provisional empanelled employees who had long service. The court traces a long line of bipartite settlements and government orders since 2008, culminating in Supreme Court and high court judgments that shape regularisation criteria. The core dispute centers on whether KSRTC could terminate employees who had been regularised under earlier orders and whether the Government’s 2013 clarification (incorporating the 120 days duty per year condition with effect from 21.12.2011) should apply to persons who had already been regularised prior to that date. The judgment cites Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala (2013) 2 KLT 258 and Civil Appeals Nos. 4435–4438/2017 (Supreme Court) which held that conditions for regularisation can be laid down and applied, even prospectively, and that the employer may impose conditions for regularisation; however, the Supreme Court’s 2017 order binds all, including those with prior judgments. The Court ultimately sets aside KSRTC’s termination orders in these cases, directs a hearing with documentary proof of ten years of service and 120 days of duty per year up to 21.12.2011, and stipulates that regularisation or termination follow based on demonstrated compliance within fixed timelines. Pensionary and retirement benefits are to be honored for those already superannuated.
This writ petition challenges the termination of the petitioner’s service as Mazdoor (Electrical Worker) in the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) following a criminal conviction. The petitioner had priorly been charged with offences under IPC sections 448 and 326; he was acquitted under 448, while 326 was upheld and the sentence reduced to one day, with a compensation award under Cr.P.C. 357(3). A show-cause notice (25.06.2015) proposed termination, which Ext. P3 ultimately effected on 30.09.2015; Ext. P4 upheld the termination, and Ext. P6 was issued in purported compliance with directions in Ext. P2, incorporating an independent legal opinion. The petitioner challenged Exts. P3, P4 and P6. This Court had earlier in Ext. P2 observed that the 326 IPC offence is not a ‘moral turpitude’ offence, and directed consideration of Damodaran P’s ratio before issuing fresh orders. The core legal questions involve (i) whether the doctrine of moral turpitude governs the termination for a conviction and (ii) whether the Board acted with independent mind or merely on legal opinions; (iii) whether pre-decisional hearing is required for temporary appointments under Rule 10(b)(iii). After hearing, the Court held that the Board’s Ext. P6 was a valid, independently reasoned decision under the Rule and upheld the termination, while admonishing the third respondent for unwarranted remarks. The petition was dismissed.
This bail application (B.A. No. 7501 of 2022) concerns Sameer, accused No.1 in Crime No. 8/2022 of the Kasaragod Excise and Narcotics Special Squad. He is charged under sections 22(c), 25 and 29 NDPS Act for possession of 196 gms of MDMA found in a car (KL 14 N 8605) on 21.04.2022. The petitioner contends that having been arrested on 21.04.2022, he is entitled to statutory bail on completion of 180 days, i.e., by 19.10.2022, while the charge sheet was laid only on 25.10.2022, and thus bail should be granted on default. The Public Prosecutor opposes, arguing that statutory bail rights expire once the charge sheet is filed, and pending regular bail is not a statutory bail application. The court analyzes constitutional rights and precedents: Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra (2001) 5 SCC 453; Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam (2017) 15 SCC 67; Ravindran v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (SC) (2020) 6 KLT 127; Subhash Bahadur @ Upender v. The State (NCT of Delhi) MANU/DE/1997/2020. The judge holds that where a regular bail is pending at accrual and there is ambiguity in the penal statute, the accused should be given the benefit of statutory bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on certain conditions (bond, sureties, appearances, no interference with investigation, travel restrictions, passport surrender, no further crimes). The order is by VIJU ABRAHAM, J. on 01.11.2022.
This is an Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed in the Kerala High Court challenging a common order of the Family Court, Thrissur, in GOP Nos. 1681/2022 and 1579/2022 concerning custody of five-year-old Athmiya. The petitioners, Rajeev and Dhanya (the respondents in GOP 1681/2022 and petitioners in GOP 1579/2022), sought to restrain the father Ajayan and his relatives from taking custody of the child and contended that the petitioners had been raising the child since birth and the child treated them as her parents. The first respondent, Ajayan, along with the second respondent, Manju M.N., sought custody of the child. The Family Court, after hearing three interlocutory applications together, held that depriving the child of her bond with the parents would be detrimental and directed custody to the father, while allowing the mother limited interaction. On 21.10.2022, the court interacted with the child; the child expressed a preference to stay with the father. The High Court relied on Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan and Vasudha Sethi v. Kiran V. Bhaskar to reiterate that the welfare of the child is paramount and that visitation rights are essential when custody is altered. The High Court upheld the Family Court’s custody order and directed alternate-day video/audio interactions for the mother until disposal of GOP 1681/2022.
This is a bail application (B.A. No. 8492 of 2021) by the 1st accused Sanal in S.C. No. 799 of 2021, pending before the III Addl. Sessions Court, Thrissur, in connection with Crime No. 1225 of 2020 of Anthikkad Police Station. The offence is alleged under IPC sections 341, 302, 120B, 392, 506(ii), 212, 109, 201 read with section 34 IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution contends a criminal conspiracy, led by accused No.7, to murder Nidhil, resulting in fatal injuries inflicted with deadly weapons such as swords, knives and axes; the attack occurred in broad daylight near Mangattukara Vattukulam temple on 10.10.2020, and the victim succumbed to his injuries. The investigation is complete and trial is pending. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the 22-year-old accused is innocent, suffering from cancer, and undergoing treatment; he argues that regular treatment is essential and that bail is warranted to secure his health needs. The Public Prosecutor counters with violent gang rivalries, risk of retaliation, intimidating witnesses, absconding, and the petitioner’s extensive criminal antecedents (thirteen cases across stations). The court relies on established Supreme Court bail principles to assess whether bail should be granted and ultimately dismisses the bail application while directing jail authorities to ensure continued medical treatment for the petitioner.
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) appeals against a Division Bench decision concerning the regulation of private and public sector stage carriage services in Kerala under the Motor Vehicles Act and related schemes. The appeal challenges the effect of Annexure 1’s superclass scheme (dated 16.07.2013) and its interplay with Annexure 2 (2017) amendments to the MV Rules, along with Annexures 3 (2015) and 4 (2020) which together govern the operation of Ordinary Service and Ordinary Limited Stop Service and the allocation of route rights between private operators and the State Transport Undertaking (STU). The case traces how, during pendency of a renewal petition, temporary permits were issued and a 140-km cap was imposed by RTA Malappuram, with government orders extending documents until 31.12.2021. KSRTC relies on KSRTC v. Saju Varkey (2018 KLJ 145) to uphold the validity of Annexure 2 Rule, and contends that the private sector’s ability to operate longer routes (as permitted by earlier Annexure 3 orders) conflicts with the Scheme’s clauses, especially Clause 18. The writ petition record shows the Court’s 12.01.2022 disposal, stating that a modified or new Scheme may be introduced under the MV Act, leaving contentions open. The WA seeks to require the Respondents to consider Annexure R1(a) for variation limiting the route on the Thrissur–Guruvayoor–Kozhikode corridor and to place it before the RTA. The petition also discusses the Government’s approach to scheme modification and interim measures pending final policy.
WP(C) Nos. 23186 of 2022 & connected cases These batch writ petitions challenge Government Order G.O.(MS.) No.121/2022/G.Edn dated 7 July 2022 and the Plus One admission prospectus, which together reduce the private aided higher secondary school management quota to 20% and earmark 10% of seats for students of the community to which the management belongs. The petitioners, managers of private aided higher secondary schools, contend that the policy violates fundamental rights and constitutional guarantees, notably Articles 14 and 15, by creating a category-based, community-specific quota for private managements and by forcing declarations of community allegiance by school managements. The State and GE department defend the policy as a necessary reform to curb corruption and ensure merit through the Centralized Allotment Process (CAP). The court examines historical quotas (1990s-2005 framework), the Division Bench’s earlier quashing of community quota clauses, and the policy rationale, ultimately holding that: (i) GO.MS. No.121/2022 reducing management quota to 20% is lawful and non-interferable; (ii) the 10% community quota, conditioned on management declaring the community, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 15; (iii) the rider that non-declaration converts community seats to merit seats is not decisive since the 10% quota is struck down; and (iv) the vacant seats so created should be treated as open merit seats to be filled through CAP. The petitions are disposed of accordingly with directions to implement the open-merit positioning for those seats.
This Regular First Appeal arises from a suit for specific performance (OS 155/2010) at Pathanamthitta. The appellant, Dr. K.G. Viswanatha Pillai, was the defendant in the trial court; the respondent, Radhamani Ammal, is his elder sister and the plaintiff. After a 1976 family partition, the plaint schedule property (54 cents) including the family house and temple was allotted to the defendant; the plaintiff resided there and looked after the temple. In 2003, Bharath Overseas Bank commenced recovery proceedings against the mortgaged properties; to protect the family temple and house, it is alleged that the family, with mediation, decided that the plaintiff would pay Rs.46 lakhs to the defendant in return for transfer of the plaint schedule property by sale within five years. The plaintiff produced Ext.A7 (agreement for sale dated 22.02.2005) and the title deed; the defendant contested, denying receipt of Rs.46 lakhs and the execution of Ext.A7, and claimed the document to be forged. The Trial Court held Ext.A7 genuine and decreed specific performance with an escalation of Rs.4,60,000 (10%) plus costs, directing transfer on payment. The High Court, in Division Bench, evaluated the evidence, concluded that Rs.46 lakhs were indeed paid, funds were raised by PW3–PW7, and Ext.A7 reflected the oral agreement later incorporated into a formal sale; it dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decree for specific performance and costs. The judgment discusses discretionary refusal under Section 20 SR Act and clarifies that ethical concerns do not negate a concluded agreement where the facts warrant specific performance.
WP(C) Nos.23186 of 2022 & connected cases This batch of writ petitions, heard by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court on 27 July 2022, challenges Government of Kerala orders and a Plus One admission prospectus governing the management quota in Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools (PAHS). The principal contest is GO(MS) No.121/2022/G.Edn dated 7 July 2022, which reduces the management quota in PAHS to 20% and couples it with a 10% community quota, and the prospectus implementing Centralized Allotment Process (CAP) for Plus One admissions. Petitioners, managers of PAHS, submit that the 10% community quota violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and flouts the principle that there shall be no reservation for those in managerial positions or for the communities that run the institutions. The State defends the policy as a corrective measure to end irregularities and ensure merit-based admission while safeguarding community interests. The Court upholds the 20% management quota but strikes down the 10% community quota as unconstitutional for violating equality and nondiscrimination. It directs that the 10% seats be treated as open merit seats and allocated through CAP; it clarifies that admissions already made on declarations will stand. The judgment places emphasis on constitutional guarantees, judicial review of policy, and the need for merit-based allotment, while recognizing the executive branch’s policy-making role. The order disposes of the petitions with these directions.
This is a rent-control revision (R.C.Rev.No.283 of 2018) before the High Court of Kerala, arising from eviction proceedings under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The landlady moved the Rent Control Court for eviction of the tenant under sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3). The Rent Control Court granted eviction under both provisions, but the Rent Control Appellate Authority modified the order, setting aside eviction under 11(3) while affirming eviction under 11(2)(b). The revision, admitted in 2018, contends that the Appellate Authority erred in not granting eviction under 11(3) on the ground of bona fide need for the landlady to provide residential accommodation to her sister-in-law (PW2), a dependent of the landlady, despite the landlady owning other premises. The court reaffirms the jurisprudence that a bona fide need must be genuine and not a mere pretext, and that Section 11(3) is subject to provisos which bar eviction if the landlord owns another building in the same locality unless special reasons justify eviction. Ext.C1 (Commissioner’s report) shows two other residential buildings in the landlady’s possession, let to others after proceedings began. The court discusses the evolving interpretation of “members of the family” for purposes of 11(3) and the evidentiary weight of subsequent events. Ultimately, the court concludes that the revision lacks merit and dismisses it, sustaining the Appellate Authority’s order to deny eviction under 11(3).
This writ petition (W.P.(C).No.24316/2022) by Ajith Kumar S.K., a Constable/General Duty of CISF posted at FACT Udyogamandal, challenges an out-of-home transfer order dated 28.03.2022 directing his posting to Gua Ore Mines, Jharkhand. He relies on Ext P6, a disability certificate for his mother, and Ext P7, the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 8 October 2018, arguing protection from routine rotational transfers as the petitioner is or acts as the primary caregiver for his physically/mentally disabled mother. He had earlier moved WP(C).No.13372/2022; a later judgment (Ext P4) directed reconsideration after evaluating documents including medical records. He contends that Ext P9 and Ext P10 (transfer and movement orders) violate Ext P7 and the court’s earlier directions. The respondents counter that CISF transfer norms govern and provide limited protection; that the petitioner is not the primary caregiver, and that the DoPT guidelines must yield to CISF-specific provisions when applicable. They rely on case law (Sreekumar S v. Union of India; Neeraj Chaturvedi v. Central Bank of India) to argue that mere guidelines violation does not nullify a transfer and that a uniformed service member has no indefeasible right to remain at a given station. The court ultimately finds the petitioner has not established primary-caregiver status and that transfer remains an incident of service; thus the petition is dismissed. Ext P7 and related documents are weighed against CISF policy, and the relief sought is denied.
This Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C No.5663 of 2022) concerns a petition to quash proceedings arising from Crime No.319/2018 of Kottappady Police Station, now pending as S.C No.262/2019 before the Additional Sessions Court-II, North Paravoor. The accused petitioners—five individuals named in the record—are charged under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 307 read with 149 (unlawful assembly and offences including intent to injure). The prosecution case alleges a 30.03.2018 attack on respondents 2–7 stemming from a prior dispute over a pathway between neighbours. The petitioners contend that the dispute is essentially private and has been settled, with affidavits (Annexures A3–A8) sworn by the injured parties stating no subsisting grievance and no objection to quashing. The SHO’s verification of the settlement is also noted. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, the court recognizes the private nature of the dispute and the absence of public interest, allowing its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings. The order also notes a connected case (Crime No.320/2018) where a mutual settlement exists. The court quashes Annexure-A2 final report and all further proceedings in S.C 262/2019 against the petitioners, effectively ending the prosecution in this matter.
This High Court of Kerala appeal concerns an award by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for injuries sustained by the appellant MujeeB in a motor accident on 24.04.2003. The Tribunal held the driver-owner responsible and the insurer liable, awarding Rs. 29,348 with 9% interest. The claimant contends that the compensation is inadequate across heads, the evidence of income is insufficient, and the disability percentage should be higher (5% PPD as per Medical Board). The insurer admits coverage and argues the tribunal’s quantum is just. The High Court, relying on Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq, fixes the monthly income for a coolie at Rs. 4,000 (rather than Rs. 2,000) for the purpose of computation and applies established principles from Raj Kumar, Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi to recompute damages. The court recalculates loss of earnings to Rs. 7,000 (for three months), pain and suffering to Rs. 2,500, disability to Rs. 40,800, and loss of amenities to Rs. 5,000, arriving at an enhanced total of Rs. 42,800 with 7.5% interest. The insurer is directed to pay within two months after certification, with bank details to be provided.
