This MACA arises from a common Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award under O.P.(M.V) No.324/2002, relating to the death of Mohammed Aslam in a motor accident on 3 November 2001 at Willingdon Island. The appellants, legal representatives of the deceased, challenge the Tribunal award on the ground that compensation for heads such as loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium was inadequately assessed and that the deceased’s income and future prospects were miscalculated. The owner, driver, and insurer of the trailer lorry were impleaded; the driver’s negligence was found by the Tribunal, which also held that Aslam died while being transported to hospital. The Tribunal awarded Rs 3,65,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum and directed the 3rd respondent to deposit the amount. The appellants contend that Pranay Sethi’s framework (as laid down by the Supreme Court for heads of compensation, including loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium) should be applied, and seek re-computation. The High Court (Single Judge, Justice Mary Joseph) re-evaluates the evidence, including PW1 and Exts A1–A13, and applies the Pranay Sethi principles to adjust income (from Rs 2,500 to Rs 3,000), apply a 40% addition for future prospects, deduct 1/4 for personal expenditure, and revise the total compensation.”
Rajeesh, the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.516/2008 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara, challenges the tribunal award on the ground of inadequate compensation for injuries suffered in a road traffic collision on 21 July 2007. A jeep proceeding from Atholi area collided with a bus KL-11-G8379 driven rashly by Rajesh Kumar; the claimant sustained fractures of the lateral wall orbit, nasal bone, and zygomatic arch, plus diffuse brain edema, resulting in hospitalization for 85 days and a permanent disability of 75%. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 6,75,864, a figure the claimant regards as too low in view of the severity, hospitalisation, and the impact on earning capacity. The insurer does not contest the accident or injuries or policy. The High Court, in reappraising the award, relies on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. to fix a notional income of Rs. 6,000 per month for a casual labourer in 2007 in the absence of documentary income proof, and on Pranay Sethi to grant 40% future prospects due to the claimant's age below 40. Thus, the notional monthly income becomes Rs. 8,400, and with a multiplier of 17 the disability compensation is recalculated at Rs. 12,85,200. Additional amounts are awarded for loss of earnings, bystander expenses, extra nourishment, and pain and suffering, yielding an enhanced total of Rs. 7,78,200. The insurer is directed to deposit this amount with interest within two months, with circular-based adjustments; the appeal is allowed and costs waived.
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the accused in a serious sex-offence case arising from proceedings in the Additional District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam, under SC No.1318/2021. The accused faces multiple charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for offences including trafficking, wrongful confinement, aggravated sexual assault, rape, and criminal intimidation, along with provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The prosecution examined 22 witnesses; the defense examined one. The prosecution sought two remedies: CMP 184/2023 under Section 91 Cr.P.C to summon the matriculation certificate of the victim and CMP 185/2023 under Section 311 Cr.P.C to recall PW1 for cross-examination. The Trial Court allowed both. The State contends that the matriculation certificate is substantive evidence for age, as Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 and Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 provide that age of a child is determined using school/board certificates and only in absence of these can age be determined by ossification. The petitioner contends these steps would create lacunae and prejudice the defense. The High Court, while noting the legal framework for age-determination and the broad scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C, ultimately held that recalling PW1 and admitting the matriculation certificate would not prejudice the accused and dismissed the Crl.M.C. The order underscores the primacy of age-proving documents and cautions against capricious recall, emphasizing fair trial while noting the intrinsic weaknesses of a case do not automatically entitle a party to adduce additional evidence.
INKEL Limited filed Arbitration Requests Nos. 48 and 49 of 2021 under Clause 16 of the Share Purchase and Shareholders Agreement with M/s Seguro Foundations and Structures Pvt. Ltd., alleging overvaluation of shares, suppression of receivables and misrepresentations. INKEL acquired 65% of Seguro in November 2017, while Mr. Rajeev C. Vijayan continued as Managing Director and Mrs. Seena Rajeev as Additional Director. Disputes emerged over valuation, misrepresentation, mismanagement and breaches of the agreements, which INKEL says were only discovered in January 2019 after an internal audit. The petitioner invoked arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Respondents contended lack of party presence (the Company not being in the party array) would render an award unenforceable and relied on Vidya Drolia to oppose reference to arbitration, arguing the disputes are intracompany and potentially non-arbitrable, with Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 to be invoked. The High Court, noting the arbitration clause and the dispute resolution clause, held that maintainability is a matter for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide, rejected a blanket bar under Companies Act, and held that limitation should be for the Tribunal to decide. The Court appointed a sole arbitrator, Mr. Justice T.R. Ramachandran Nair, and directed procedures for disclosure and fees, keeping all contentions open for the arbitrator to adjudicate.
This is a Criminal Misc. Case (CRL.MC No. 2363 of 2023) filed under Section 482 CrPC by five accused persons (petitioners) challenging CC No.768/2022 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kakkanad. The essential prosecution case is that on 26.08.2022 the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of assault, resulting in injuries to respondents 3–6, under IPC sections 143, 147, 323, and 324 read with 149. The petitioners contend that a settlement has been reached with the complainants and there is no desire to pursue the prosecution; an affidavit from the injured party supports this. The court had earlier directed recording of the defacto complainant’s statement and to report on genuineness of the settlement, antecedents, and impediments to termination. The respondents, through the Public Prosecutor, raised reservations about quashing purely on the basis of settlement in cases under Section 320 CrPC, and cautioned that some offences are not private in nature and carry social impact. The High Court analyzed precedents (Gian Singh; Narinder Singh; State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat; Deepak; Manish; Ramesh Kamath; Rajveer Singh; Parbatbhai; Aahir; Kalyan Singh; Dhruv Gurjar) and held that quashing under Section 482 is permissible where the dispute is private, non‑heinous, and the entire dispute has been resolved, considering factors such as gravity of the offence, injuries, and antecedents. The court found that there would be no adverse social impact by quashing and, exercising its powers, allowed the petition. Consequently, Annexure A1 FIR and all further proceedings in CC 768/2022 were quashed.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 646 OF 2011 This Kerala High Court criminal revision concerns the conviction of the sole accused for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, following the seizure of banana chip packets and a laboratory analysis that found tartrazine adulteration. The trial court convicted him under sections 16(1-A)(i) read with 7(i) and 2(ia)(a) and (j) of the Act, along with misbranded products under the Rules 23, 29, 32 and 37A(b) of the 1955 Rules, and sentenced one year’s simple imprisonment with a Rs. 1,000 fine. The Appellate Court confirmed the conviction. In the revision petition, the petitioner argued that the Public Analyst’s report (Ext.P13) was based on a laboratory not recognised under Section 23(1-A)(ee), rendering the prosecution fatally defective, relying on Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Inspector and Rasheed v. Food Inspector. The State pressed that Pepsico is not applicable here because Central/State governments appoint Public Analysts, and Rasheed’s reasoning should be applied. The Division Bench in Rasheed held that prosecutions cannot proceed on reports from non-notified labs where analysis is essential. The Kerala High Court ultimately allowed the revision petition, acquitting the petitioner and cancelling bail, holding that no valid prosecution could lie under the circumstances. The final outcome emphasizes the necessity of analysis from a laboratory defined under S.23(1-A)(ee) for such prosecutions to succeed.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1795 OF 2011 This Kerala High Court criminal revision petition (CRL.REV.PET NO. 1795 OF 2011) challenges a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Trial Court found Krishnakumari, who stood as a surety for her husband’s chitty debt, guilty for issuing Ext. P1, a cheque dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, and sentenced her to three months’ simple imprisonment with a compensatory payment of Rs. 28,000 under Section 357(3) CrPC, with a default additional three months’ imprisonment. The Appellate Court upheld the conviction but reduced the substantive sentence to a day’s imprisonment until rising of the court, while keeping the compensation intact. The High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under CrPC Sections 397-401, reviews for patent illegality or misreading of records, while cautioning that revisional power is sparing and supervisory rather than appellate. It canvasses foundational principles governing NI Act prosecutions, including presumptions under Sections 118(a) (consideration) and 139 (presumption in favour of the holder), and the doctrine of reverse onus that shifts the onus to the accused to rebut by preponderance of probabilities. Relying on Rangappa, Kalamani Tex, and Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan, the court sustains the concurrent findings. The revision petition is dismissed; convictions and sentences are confirmed; the petitioner is directed to appear on 29.1.2024 to serve the substantive sentence and pay remaining compensation, with the execution deferred to 28.1.2024.
This is a First Appeal from Orders (F.A.O. No. 34 of 2009) filed by N.P. Joy challenging the orders dated 31.07.2007 in I.A. Nos. 22 of 2005 and 23 of 2005 in O.S. No. 81 of 1995 on the files of the Sub Court, Sulthanbathery. The suit sought specific performance of an agreement for sale, but the plaint was rejected for non-payment of the balance court fee. The appellant sought restoration of the suit and enlargement of time, which the Sub Court allowed to some extent but ultimately dismissed the restoration and condonation applications. The theory was that despite enlargement of time, the balance court fees were not paid, and delay was excessive. The appellant argued illness and treatment prevented timely payment and travel to court, justifying restoration, while the respondents submitted that there was no sufficient reason to condone such a long delay and that repeated opportunities were squandered. The High Court, after evaluating evidence and applying established constitutional and judicial principles, concludes that the seven-year-plus delay cannot be condoned given the lack of convincing proof of total incapacity to travel or act. Citing Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji and Esha Bhattacharjee, the court stresses that the concept of “sufficient cause” is elastic but must promote substantial justice, with a liberal approach tempered by prejudice to others. Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed and the Sub Court’s orders are upheld, with restoration not granted.
MFA (Forest) No.85 of 2015 The appeal (MFA (Forest) No. 85 of 2015) challenges the Forest Tribunal’s order in O.A. No. 3/2012 under the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting & Assignment) Act, 1971. The petitioner-candidate asserts that 48 cents of Sy.No.103/5pt (Re.Sy.No.192/3), Vellinezhi Village, Ottappalam Taluk, Palakkad District, devolved to her by Ext.A2 partition deed in 1920, and that the land has been cultivated since 1920. She contends there was no vesting notification for the property and, even if a notification existed, it was not published lawfully; she argues the land is not forest land under the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 (MPPFA), describing it as dry land with cultivated trees. The respondent Forest Department asserts that the land forms part of Kolakadanmala, a large private forest, already notified as vested on 10.10.1979 under the MPPF Act, and that the applicant’s earlier Section 8 applications cover related properties. The Tribunal concluded that the land is private forest under Section 2(f)(1)(i) of the Vesting Act and under the MPPF Act, with the application barred by limitation; identity and cultivation proofs were found insufficient. The High Court, after considering evidence and precedents, upheld the Tribunal’s findings and dismissed the appeal with costs.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1464 OF 2011 This is a criminal revision petition filed by the revision petitioner, Asokan, challenging the conviction under Sections 354 and 451 IPC and the sentence awarded by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Attingal, which was upheld in the Fast Track (Adhoc)-IV court by confirming the conviction but reducing the sentence in the appeal. The prosecution alleged that on 9 February 2006 the accused trespassed into PW1’s house and attempted to outrage her modesty by pulling her garments, after which he allegedly closed her mouth when she raised an alarm. The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to one year’s simple imprisonment for both offences and a fine of Rs. 5,000, with default imprisonment for six months. In Criminal Appeal No. 876/2009, the Appellate Court confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to six months for each offence, maintaining the fine and default sentence. The petitioner contends that, in light of out-of-court settlement with the second respondent (Vijayamma), and relying on the jurisprudence under Section 482 CrPC (notably Soban and Gian Singh), the High Court should quash the conviction and set aside the sentence and proceedings. The State indicates no objection to disposal by settlement. The High Court, invoking its plenary powers under 482 CrPC and following the cited precedents, allowed the revision, set aside the conviction and sentence, quashed further proceedings, cancelled bail bonds, and ordered refund of any remitted fines to the petitioner, aiming to preserve harmony and ends of justice.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3447 OF 2023 This Bail Application No. 3447 of 2023 is filed by accused Nos.3 and 4 in Crime No.143 of 2023 of Cherpu Police Station, Thrissur, under Section 439 CrPC. The case profile alleges that on 18.02.2023, in prosecution of a common object, an unlawful assembly formed with sticks attacked the victim near the Chirakkal Kottam, resulting in grievous injuries and death on 07.03.2023. The petitioners, accused Nos.3 and 4, were arrested on 26.03.2023 and have remained in custody since. The main overt acts, as per the prosecution, are attributed to accused Nos.1 and 2, while the petitioners contend that the weapon used was a stick and the injuries observed (and death) stemmed from blunt abdominal injuries; they argue their involvement is limited. The prosecution argues the offences are serious and that the petitioners are implicated with Section 149 IPC. Counsel for petitioners asserts lack of serious overt acts by them and the long custody period justify bail, while the Public Prosecutor opposes bail. The court cites the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, referencing Chidambaram v Directorate of Enforcement, and, on considering the facts, grants bail to the petitioners with conditions: bond of Rs.50,000 each with two solvent sureties, appearance for interrogation, travel restrictions, non-commitment of similar offences, prohibition from entering Cherpu jurisdiction for two months, and disclosure of address/phone number to the IO within seven days.
Surat S, the sole accused in NDPS Crime No. 27/2023 of Neyyattinkara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, seeks regular bail in BA No. 3354 of 2023 before the High Court of Kerala. The prosecution case is that, at about 7:45 a.m. on 15.04.2023, the accused was found in possession of 46.37 grams of MDMA, leading to offences punishable under sections 22(c) and 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS). The petitioner contends innocence and that the allegations are false, pressing for regular bail. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail on the ground that the recovery of MDMA constitutes a significant quantity, invoking the stringent bail regime under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and noting that the investigation is in the early, primitive stage. The court analyzes Section 37, including the rider under subsection (1)(b) and (ii) for offences involving commercial quantity, and cites Union of India v. Shiv Shankar Kesari to interpret the phrase ‘reasonable grounds’ as more than prima facie. It surveys several authorities to emphasize that the two conditions under Section 37(1)(b) must be read conjunctively and satisfied before granting bail when a commercial quantity is involved, and that bail is not an acquittal. After considering the material, the court finds the conditions unmet and dismisses the bail application, emphasizing the protective aim of the NDPS regime. The order thus denies regular bail to the petitioner.
WP(C) Nos. 697/2018; 805/2018 The two writ petitions, heard together, were filed by elected members of Kunnathur Grama Panchayat challenging orders of disqualification issued by the Kerala State Election Commission on grounds of defection. The petitions assert that the alleged defection was based on a whip (direction in writing) and that service of the whip on the Secretary of the Panchayat is a mandatory prerequisite under the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999. The petitioners contend that there is no valid whip and that no proper pleadings or proof were provided to establish service of the whip on the Secretary, thus making the disqualification invalid. The respondents contend that pleadings were adequate, asserting the existence of a valid whip and its service, and that the Court should refrain from interfering under Article 226 since the Commission acted in compliance with the law. The judgment cites George Elamplakkadu v. A.V. Mathew and Jomon K.M. v. Kerala State Election Commission, emphasizing that service of the whip on the Secretary is mandatory and that lack of such service invalidates the whip. Upon finding that the impugned order did not establish service on the Secretary and that remand would be futile, the Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the disqualification orders (O.P. Nos. 10/2016 and 11/2016), and dismissed the petitions. The matter highlights the stringent requirement of service of whip to the Secretary for valid disqualification proceedings under the Act.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal arising from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, in OP(MV) 291/2007, concerning the death of Ivan Joseph in a road accident on 12.10.2005. The appellants, legal heirs of the deceased, challenged an award of Rs.11,21,000 out of a claim for Rs.25,00,000. Counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal wrongly computed notional income and failed to award appropriate heads such as loss of consortium; they rely on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., to fix a notional income of Rs.5,000 per month with 40% future prospects and a 17-multiplier, arguing for Rs.1,60,000 under loss of consortium and a higher amount for funeral and related heads. The KSRTC argues the Tribunal’s assessment is largely correct and that certain heads should be capped (loss of estate and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000 each, following Pranay Sethi) with no entitlement for loss of love and affection. The High Court reviews the evidence, holds that the deceased’s notional income should be adjusted, and that 40% future prospects apply, also recognizing negligence. The appeal is allowed in part, with revisions to several heads; liability and interest remain as awarded, with enhanced compensation recoverable from respondents and costs.
This is a Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.M.C. No. 3097 of 2019) filed in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam by Dr. Saban K.V. challenging the First Information Report in Crime No. 384/2019 registered at Edathua Police Station. Petitioner-accused No.1 was the Principal of St. Aloysius College, Edathua; accused No.2 was the college’s Legal Advisor. Following disciplinary actions against staff, the Government directed an inquiry by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Ernakulam; the probe team visited the college on 25.03.2019. The petitioner and accused No.2 allegedly conspired to obstruct the de facto complainant from discharging official duties, and the complainant claims insult and obstruction in the discharge of duties. The case involves offences alleged under IPC Sects. 353, 506(1), 509, and 120B read with 34. The petitioner submits that, in view of an earlier order dated 23.11.2021 in Crl.M.C.No.4290 of 2019, the substratum of the prosecution has been shattered; even if the Annexure A1 allegations are accepted, no offence is disclosed. Relying on the Bhajan Lal framework in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, the petitioner contends continued proceedings amount to abuse of process and do not serve the ends of justice. The court, applying category 3 of Bhajan Lal, finds no offence and, exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, quashes the FIR and all consequential proceedings; the Crl.M.C. is allowed.
The appellant, N.I. Gangadharan, filed O.P.(MV) No.782 of 2007 seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident on 21.08.2006, allegedly caused by rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent who owned the autorickshaw insured by the 3rd respondent. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, held, on evidence, that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent and that the insurer was liable, with a right of recovery against the owner after satisfying the award. The Tribunal awarded Rs.58,894 and the insurer contested both negligence and quantum, including alleged policy violations. The appellant contends the award undervalues his disability (Ext.A8 shows 15% permanent disability via McBride scale) and that disability and other heads of compensation were inadequately calculated. He argues for a higher monthly income (Rs.5,500 as per Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq, rather than Rs.3,000 used by the Tribunal) and seeks additional sums for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and loss of clothing. The High Court reviews these contentions, finds merit in accepting the disability certificate and increasing the monthly income, and recalculates the compensation accordingly. It awards an additional Rs.1,07,800 and directs the insurer to deposit within three months, with the right of recovery retained against the owner after payment.
Lekha, the appellant in MACA No. 2285 of 2010, challenges a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award in OP(MV) No.1648/2003 for injuries from a July 26, 2002 accident involving an autorickshaw. The claimant was eight months pregnant; the collision caused the fetus’s death and necessitated removal of the uterus, leaving her with infertility. The Tribunal held the insurer liable and awarded Rs.1,55,200 with interest. The appellant pressed for higher compensation, arguing the fetus was viable at 32 weeks and should be treated as a ‘child’ for compensation. She relied on Abhulasees v. Abdumanaf (Full Bench), and cited Supreme Court guidance that the loss of a baby should be compensated and that minimum amounts be paid for child loss. The Insurance Company contested liability on policy grounds and disputed quantum, while admitting coverage. Relying on Full Bench authorities and subsequent Supreme Court rulings, the Kerala High Court held that a foetus at eight months can be treated as a viable child for compensation and proceeded to recompute heads of loss. It increased compensation for loss of child to Rs.1,00,000, added Rs.50,000 for post-pregnancy uterine removal, Rs.10,000 for pain and suffering, and Rs.10,000 for loss of amenities, totaling Rs.1,70,000 as additional compensation. The appeal was allowed and the award modified accordingly.
BAIL APPL. NO. 679 OF 2023 This High Court of Kerala bail petition concerns Pranav Suresh, the first accused in Crime No. 2031/2022 of the Thrikkodithanam police station, who seeks regular bail under Section 439 CrPC. The prosecution alleges that on the night of 25 November 2022, the accused along with five others uttered obscene words against the defacto complainant and his brother and attacked the brother. The accused is alleged to have driven his car against the defacto complainant, causing very serious injuries though the complainant survived. Offences alleged include 294(b) IPC (obscene words), 323 IPC (hurt), 308 IPC (attempt to cause grievous hurt), and 326 r/w 34 IPC (causing grievous hurt with common intent). The petitioner contends innocence, noting his arrest on 26.11.2022 and that the case stands as CP 81/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Changanassery, seeking bail as a matter of right given age and circumstances. The Public Prosecutor submits IO’s report showing petitioner’s complicity and cites a wound certificate documenting injuries such as fractures of teeth. The petitioner, aged 19, has a marked criminal record, having seven prior crimes since 2020, including several under Section 392 IPC. Balancing these considerations, the court grants bail with stringent conditions: bond, sureties, no witness intimidation, regular IO visits, no travel abroad, passport surrender, and no further offences.
MFA (Forest) No.156 of 2011 This High Court of Kerala appeal arises from the Forest Tribunal’s order dated 2 February 2011, which rejected exemptions under the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (Vesting Act) for land in Sy. No. 184 of Kunnathidavaka, Vythiri taluk, part of the Lakkadi Estate purchased by M.K. Kumaran. The wife and children of Kumaran (appellants) sought declaration of exemption under S.3(2)/(3) of the Vesting Act, claiming entitlement to 1/6th shares (approximately 82.5 acres) within the estate, within Kerala Land Reforms Act ceilings. The mother’s OA 77/1998 and others filed by his children sought exemptions over 7.5 acres and 15 acres respective to the same survey number. The purchase was sanctioned under the Madras Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949. The Tribunal’s remand for de novo consideration involved commission reports identifying a coffee plantation on parts of the property. The High Court held that, while the Vesting Act requires proof of intention to cultivate and compliance with ceilings, there is substantial evidence of coffee cultivation in a defined area (about 12.6885 hectares). The Tribunal erred in not recognizing exempted status of the cultivated area and, accordingly, partly allowed the appeal, declaring the Ext.C6 green area as exempted under the Vesting Act.
WP(C) Nos. 14763/2023 & 14769/2023 Two writ petitions (WP(C) Nos. 14763/2023 and 14769/2023) from acid-attack survivors seeking enhanced compensation under the Kerala Victim Compensation Scheme. The petition by minor Master Abhishek, represented by his mother, and by Smt. Rincy M.R. allege grievous burn injuries from an acid attack. They challenge the District Legal Services Authority (DELSA) awards of Rs. 5,00,000 to Rincy and Rs. 2,50,000 to Master Abhishek as grossly inadequate in light of the injuries suffered: Rincy has more than 50% burns on her face; Abhishek bears facial, neck and back scars and is a permanently disabled child with mental retardation and seizure disorder. They pray for setting aside the impugned orders and directing DELSA to reconsider, with escalation of the awarded amounts, after due opportunity of hearing. DELSA contends the orders reflect consideration of all relevant factors but expresses willingness to reconsider if the Court so desires, citing Laxmi v. Union of India and Parivartan Kendra v. UOI for affirmative declarations. The Court acknowledges the severity of injuries and emphasizes that reparation must be adequate and commensurate, directing DELSA to reassess solely from the escalation perspective, with a hearing, and issue a fresh order expeditiously but within four months of receipt of the judgment.
