This Kerala High Court judgment concerns an auction-purchase dispute arising from a secured asset sale originally mortgaged with the United Bank of India (now Punjab National Bank). The applicant-petitioner, Three Line Properties, claimed to have purchased the secured asset in 2009 for Rs 9 crores, with sale confirmation and sale certificate registered in 2013, after which they sought possession. The tenants of the property, who had challenged the sale in various proceedings (including before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and several High Court writ petitions), contend tenancy rights and a need to safeguard their interests under the Transfer of Property Act. Several reviews and SLPs before the Supreme Court were dismissed, and the Division Bench decisions against the tenants were noted. The petitioner argued that once the Section 14 petition to take possession under SARFAESI is triggered, possession should be handed over to the secured creditor without delay, and merger of the erstwhile lender with the present bank does not bar disposal. The respondents argued tenancy rights under Section 65A(2) TP Act, and objected to speedy disposal pending Supreme Court outcomes. The Court held that the petitioner’s purchase is confirmed, tenancies created post-mortgage, and that there is no merit in delaying possession; citing Authorised Officer, Indian Bank v. D. Visalakshi to affirm the remedial nature of Section 14. The petition is allowed with a direction to dispose of M.C.177/2017 expeditiously, within one month.
Rajesh R. and Satheeshkumar P.R., petitioners and accused in Crime No. 233/2023 of the Perumpetty Police Station, approached the Kerala High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings arising from alleged offences of trespass and assault—Sections 452, 294(b), 506, 323, 324, 326, 427 read with Section 34 IPC. The petition contends that the parties have amicably settled their disputes, evidenced by affidavits from the de facto complainant and the injured respondents (Annexures A2–A4), and that continuing the prosecution would hamper peace and obstruct the parties’ future path. The court directed investigation to verify the settlement’s genuineness, as well as any antecedents that might bar quashing. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about disposing of a case on the basis of a private settlement, but conceded there were no other transgressions against the petitioners. The judge examined established Supreme Court principles on exercise of the extraordinary power under Section 482 to quash non‑compoundable offences when the dispute is private and settled, while recognizing that certain offences (heinous, serious, or under special statutes) should not be quashed. After weighing gravity, injuries, antecedents, and the current amicable relationship, the court held that quashing would not adversely impact society and would serve ends of justice. Consequently, the FIR and all further proceedings were quashed.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC 3440 of 2023) filed under Section 482 CrPC challenges SC No.1476/2022 before the Additional District & Sessions Court-II, Manjeri, and Crime No.924/2022 (Perinthalmanna Police Station). Petitioners 1–10 faced charges in offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 308 r/w 149. The prosecution alleges that on 13.08.2022 the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly, restrained two victims, and assaulted them. The petition argues that the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled, supported by affidavits from the de facto complainants, and that continuation of prosecution serves no useful purpose. The investigating officer was directed to verify the genuineness of the settlement and to assess whether the petitioners have any criminal antecedents or impediments to quashing. The Public Prosecutor raised reservations about relying solely on a settlement. The Court adumbrates the law from leading Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Gian Singh; Narinder Singh; Laxmi Narayan; and others) to hold that Section 482 CrPC powers may be exercised to quash non‑compoundable offences of a private/civil character when disputes are resolved, while not applying to heinous or public‑interest offences or special statutes. After weighing gravity of the offence, injuries, antecedents, and the amicable settlement, the Court allowed the petition and quashed Annexure A2 Final Report in Crime No. 924/2022 and all further proceedings in SC No.1476/2022.
This Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.M.C. No. 3413 of 2023) arises from a petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by Roshin, the accused in CC No.769/2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nadapuram, challenging the ongoing criminal proceedings for offences under Section 354D(1) IPC and Section 506(i) IPC. The respondent State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor, and Drisya oppose termination, while the petitioner contends that the parties have settled their disputes and do not wish to continue the prosecution. The High Court previously directed investigation to ascertain whether the settlement is genuine, whether the petitioner has prior criminal antecedents, and any impediments to quashing. The learned Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement, yet stated the de facto complainant/victim had expressed no enduring grievances in the recorded statement. The court reviews guidence from a line of Supreme Court decisions starting with State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan and summarising law in Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and related cases, outlining when Section 482 power may be exercised. It emphasizes that quashing is permissible for private, non-compoundable offences where settlement occurs and does not adversely impact society, subject to scrutiny of antecedents and other contextual factors. The Court ultimately allows the petition, quashing the FIR (Crime No.103/2020) and all further proceedings in CC No.769/2020.
This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC challenging the order in CC 941/2019 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Payyannur. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 — Mahesh K, Nimesh K, Sunith A, and Rahul C — were charged in the trial court with offences under IPC sections 294(b), 323, and 324 read with Section 34. The prosecution case arises from 28 June 2019, when, due to prior enmity, they allegedly restrained the de facto complainant and his companion and assaulted them, causing injuries. The petition contends that the parties have settled their disputes amicably, and there is no desire to pursue the prosecution; affidavits filed by respondents 3 and 4 support the settlement. The investigating officer was directed to verify the genuineness of the settlement and whether the petitioners have antecedents or any impediment to quashing the proceedings. The Public Prosecutor raised reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but acknowledged lack of other transgressions. The court examined the law under Section 482 CrPC, citing State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan and other decisions, to determine when quashing is appropriate—chiefly where the offence is not heinous and the dispute is private and settled. On weighing the gravity, injuries, antecedents, and now-peaceful settlement, the court held that quashing would not harm society. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the Final Report (Crime No. 216/2019) and all further proceedings in CC 941/2019 were quashed.
This Kerala High Court (Ernakulam) judgment in Cr.M.C. No.3464/2023 addresses quashing of proceedings arising from Crime No.592/2014 of Edakkad Police Station, Kannur, which stands pending as S.C.639/2015 before the Additional District & Sessions Judge-IV, Thalassery. The petitioners, fifteen accused, seek invocation of the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that a settlement has been reached with the de facto complainants (respondents 2–4). The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposes quashing, arguing that there is no material to indicate that the charge under Section 307 IPC has been wrongly included, and that the offence is not amenable to compounding. The respondents 2–4 contend they have no objection to quashing, noting that the issues have been settled. The court considers the arguments, aided by a wound certificate indicating that the injuries are unlikely to attract Section 307 IPC. Relying on Mandhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. (2019(2) KHC 190) which relies on Nairinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, the judge concludes that the settlement and lack of material to prove 307 IPC justify exercise of the inherent power to quash. The Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings in S.C.639/2015 against the petitioners are quashed.
This appeal arises from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam, in OP(MV) No.483/2008, which sought compensation for Sivadasan’s injuries and eventual death after a road accident in 2005. The original petition claimed Rs 75,00,000 for the injuries, later amended to seek compensation for death after Sivadasan died on 30.04.2010 while in a coma for five years. The Tribunal fixed the deceased’s monthly income at a notional Rs 6,000 because the evidence of actual earnings was unsatisfactory, and adopted a multiplier of 14 with deductions for personal expenses. It allowed various expenses but declined several claims (notably large Ayurvedic bills and some home-nursing expenditures). The appellants (legal heirs) contended that Sivadasan had worked abroad in the UAE as a tailor earning about Rs 43,000 per month, supported by passport and account documents, and urged application of Indian standards for income in foreign employment (Valsamma v. Binu Jose). They argued for higher compensation incorporating loss of future prospects (per Pranay Sethi) and full reimbursement of medical, nursing, and ancillary expenses, as well as non-pecuniary losses. The Kerala High Court, applying Valsamma and Pranay Sethi, revised the monthly income to Rs 10,000, retained the 14-year multiplier, added bystander and medical expenses, and ultimately awarded Rs 43,26,566 with 7% interest, allowing the MACA. The appeal is allowed accordingly, with disbursal in line with Tribunal guidelines.
MACA Nos. 2662/2015 and 3080/2015 This High Court of Kerala judgment arises from two Motor Accidents Claims Appeals (MACA Nos. 2662/2015 and 3080/2015) challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam award in OP(MV) 1357/2013 relating to the death of Arunkumar in a road accident on 28.12.2012. The insurer (appellant in MACA2662) and the petitioners/claimants (appellants in MACA3080) challenge the quantum of compensation and the computation of monthly income. The Tribunal held negligence by the lorry driver and fixed compensation at Rs.30,04,000, directing the insurer to pay with 9% interest. The Kerala High Court revisits the monthly income computation, relying on Supreme Court precedents (Sarla Verma; Shyamwati Sharma; Manasvi Jain) to determine whether future prospects should be included and which salary components should be considered. It notes the deceased joined a new job shortly before death, with probation not declared, and discusses Ext. A14 salary certificate and Ext. A20 terms/conditions. The court ultimately accepts a broader salary base, applies the 50% future prospects rule in light of Sarla Verma and related cases, adjusts for deductions and specific allowances, and also applies Pranay Sethi and Somwati/Satinder Kaur principles. The result is a modified award, granting an additional Rs.8,99,555 to the petitioners, with deposit and interest conditions, and with funeral and love/affection considerations adjusted as per current doctrine. The decision is delivered by a single judge, Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A.
The petitioners, devotees of Ithithanam Elamkavu Temple in Kurichi Village (Changanassery Taluk), challenged a District Monitoring Committee order permitting a Gaja Mela parade of elephants at Ithithanam Elamkavu Temple during the 2023 festival. The temple festival, a public occasion with a substantial elephant procession, had previously raised safety concerns (elephant height measurement and related controls) and alleged noncompliance with the Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2012. The petitioners argue that Ext. P7 (permitting 22 elephants) was issued without proper consideration of statutory safeguards and judicial directions (notably the Court’s order in Ext. P6 following W.P.(C) 12688 of 2023) and the law laid down by this Court in Prema Kumar P v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others (2022 (6) KHC 90). Respondents contend that elephants are integral to the temple festival, that the rules do not ban such processions, and that the District Monitoring Committee followed statutory requirements, held hearings (18.04.2023), and weighed safety, space, and cultural considerations in granting permission for 22 elephants. The High Court ultimately limited the permissible number to 13 elephants, directing strict compliance with the 2012 Rules and the Prema Kumar P guidance, while emphasizing safety and the public’s welfare and retaining jurisdiction to ensure compliance.
This writ petition under Article 226 challenges Ext.P6, a 26.12.2022 order of the Malabar Devaswom Board Commissioner, Kozhikode, setting aside the petitioner’s appointment as a non-hereditary trustee of Shree Varadarajaswami Temple, Alamballam. The petitioner, A.L. Varadarajan, had been appointed by Ext.P1 (13.04.2022) as non-hereditary trustee of the temple. He seeks certiorari to quash Ext.P6 and mandamus to allow him to continue as trustee under the Ext.P1 order for the period specified, and a declaration that his appointment should not be set aside. The respondents include the State, Malabar Devaswom Board and officers of the Board, plus temple authorities; many are represented by standing government counsel. The sole issue is maintainability: whether the petitioner can invoke Article 226 when a statutory remedy exists under Section 99 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. The court notes that a remedy under Section 99 is available before the 1st respondent; during the pendency a review petition under Section 99 was filed. Citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Das Agarwal and other decisions, the court reiterates the long-standing rule that the existence of an efficacious statutory remedy ordinarily bars entertaining a writ petition unless exceptional circumstances. The court dismisses the writ petition on maintainability, while leaving open the possibility of pursuing the statutory remedy. It also notes that an additional affidavit filed without Rule 154 compliance cannot be admitted, and that the petition is thus not maintainable.
This is an Kerala High Court (Ernakulam) hearing in an original petition challenging a common order dated 12.07.2022 passed by the District Judge, Pathanamthitta, in an appeal (A.S. 15/2021) and related I.A. Nos. 4/2021, 8/2022, 9/2022, 11/2022 and 12/2022. The respondents (petitioners in I.A.) sought to admit additional documents in evidence at the appellate stage, which the appellate court allowed via Ext. P13. The petitioners contend Ext. P13 contravenes Order 41, Rule 27 CPC and established jurisprudence on when appellate courts may admit additional evidence. The respondents/appeal-landers seek to rely on documents produced at the appellate stage, arguing they are necessary for the proper determination of the appeal, and that the trial court had erred in rejecting Annexure-19. Senior counsel for both sides argued about precedents including Arjun Singh v. Kartar Singh, Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, Trivandrum Golf Club v. State of Kerala, Mariamma v. Poulose, Parsotim Thakur, Indirajit Pratab Sahi and Natha Singh, among others. The High Court held that the appellate court overstepped its authority by admitting documents independently of the appeal and without proper reasons, and quashed Ext. P13. It remitted the matter to the appellate court to consider Exts. P3, P3(a), P5, P7, P9, P11 with counter affidavits and dispose of them by 31.03.2023, in accordance with law, under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The appellant, K.V. Narayanan, filed OP(MV) 527/2006 in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, seeking compensation for injuries sustained as a pillion rider in a motor collision on 10.09.2005 involving a jeep owned by the 1st respondent and insured by the 2nd respondent. The Tribunal held the 1st respondent negligent and the insurer liable, and awarded Rs. 3,60,300 with 8% interest and costs. Narayanan contends that the injuries caused permanent disability affecting his avocation as a toddy tapper; though no disability certificate was produced, the evidence—open wound, fractures of tibia and fibula, left leg disfigurement, prolonged inpatient treatment, and ongoing care eight years after the accident—demonstrates reduced earning capacity and disability. He asserts a monthly income of Rs. 6,000 (supported by Ext. A5 from the Toddy Welfare Society) and seeks compensation for loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, transportation, and future medical treatment. The respondents disputed liability on various grounds, though they admitted policy coverage, and contested the quantum. The Tribunal’s approach relied on Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq to fix a baseline monthly income of Rs. 5,000 for 2005; the court, after evaluating the evidence, fixes Rs. 6,000 and awards an additional Rs. 1,39,600 for disability, loss of earnings, pain and suffering, transportation, and future treatment, with recovery orders against the insurer and appellant. The appeal is allowed, and the award is modified accordingly.
M.F.A (Forest) No.52 of 2015 This appeal arises under Section 10 of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2005 (EFL Act) challenging a Forest Tribunal declaration that a scheduled land is excluded as ecologically fragile under the EFL Act. The land — Survey No.101/4Part of Ongallur No.1 Village — belonged to the applicants through inheritance from their father, who acquired it in 1952. Initially, the land was claimed exempt under the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (Vesting Act) and an exemption declaration was granted; a 1978 appeal was decided in the applicants’ favor, and a contempt petition led to restoration on 27.06.1997. The applicants then alleged cultivation resumed after restoration, and Forest Officials interfered in December 2009, claiming vesting under the EFL Act. The Tribunal concluded that the land was not ecologically fragile and rejected the ground of limitation; it relied on Ext.A3 (Vesting Act) to infer cultivation as on the appointed day. The respondents argued non‑proof of a notification under Section 5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, contended contiguity to vested forest, and asserted that cultivation ceased by 2011, requiring a commission to verify cultivation. The High Court, in a Division Bench, reverses the Tribunal, holding that the scheduled lands cannot be excluded as ecologically fragile and that statutory vesting under Section 3 does not hinge on Section 4 notification. The matter is remanded with the application rejected, and costs allocated to the parties.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal filed in the Kerala High Court challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, in OP(MV) No.197/2012. The appellant, National Insurance Company Limited (insured), contends against the Tribunal’s award of Rs 42,65,039 with interest and costs to the claimant, SnehaJan, who sustained injuries in a road accident on 21.07.2011 while riding a motorcycle. The 1st and 2nd respondents in the original petition were the driver and owner of the offending vehicle; both were ex parte before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found the driver had no valid license and attributed the accident to negligent riding, granting wide-ranging compensation under multiple heads, including loss of earnings, loss of earning power, medical expenses, attendant charges, and loss of amenities, while also recognizing 100% permanent disability. The NICL has urged reduction on several grounds, including non-compatibility of certain heads (loss of amenities vs. loss of marriage prospects) and the use of correct multiplier for attendant charges. The High Court, applying the Ramachandrappa income rule and subsequent Supreme Court precedents on enhancement powers and multiplier-based calculations, reworked several heads (notably future prospects, bystander expenses, and attendant charges) and, ultimately, allowed the appeal, reducing total compensation to Rs 39,11,439. The judgment discusses methods for future prospects, depreciation of certain heads, and the discretionary power to enhance compensation in exceptional circumstances.
This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC by two accused in Crime No. 375/2023 of Pazhayangadi Police Station, Kannur District, alleging offences under IPC Sections 332 and 307 and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The petitioners are Irfan P.K. and Hashim B. The state opposes bail. The accused contend the allegations are not correct and they are ready to abide by conditions if bail is granted. The Public Prosecutor contends that the gravity of the incident warrants denial of bail. The High Court observed that though the allegations are serious, custodial interrogation might not be necessary; the court can impose conditions including deposit of Rs. 25,000 each as a condition to bail. It relies on Hemachandran M.T. v. Sub-Inspector of Police (2011) 4 KLT 841, which supports imposing such conditions, and cites Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement to emphasize that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. The court granted bail with conditions: the accused to appear for interrogation within ten days; if arrest is proposed, release on bond Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties; no leave India without permission; not commit similar offences; deposit Rs. 25,000 each before the jurisdictional court; refund subject to final decision. If violated, bail can be canceled.
This MACA 1825 of 2011, heard by a single-judge bench of the Kerala High Court, challenges a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award under the Motor Vehicles Act. Vineesh, the appellant, is the 4th respondent in the original OP(MV) No.659/2005 and the owner-driver of a jeep involved in a 29 May 2005 accident that killed Surendran. The Tribunal had fastened liability on Vineesh as the rider of the motorcycle, ordering the New India Assurance Company to pay Rs. 3,61,800 to Surendran’s legal heirs. The High Court analyzes Ext. A1 to A7 (including FIR, scene mahazar, inspection report, and final police report) and oral testimony of eyewitnesses (RW-1, RW-2) to determine negligence. It notes the accident involved a head-on collision between the two vehicles on a narrow road, with evidence suggesting the jeep drove from the opposite side. While a police charge sheet can be prima facie evidence of negligence under Section 166, the court emphasizes that if a charge sheet is challenged as collusive, the matter must be decided on other evidence. Relying on the eyewitness accounts and scene mahazar, the court concludes the jeep-driver (the 4th respondent) was negligent, not Vineesh. Consequently, the insurer is liable to indemnify the jeep owner, and the Tribunal’s deposit directive is set aside. The appeal is allowed; no costs."
This writ appeal arises from a writ petition filed by M/S West India Steel Company Limited challenging a direction for restitution/re-conveyance of land purchased by the Government as bought-in-land following recovery proceedings. The petitioner had been a defaulter in public revenue arrears and Workmen's Compensation Act dues; revenue recovery actions culminated in auction of the debtor's lands, at which the Government bought the land for Re 1 in 2003. The petitioner subsequently paid the arrears in 2008 and sought reconveyance of the bought-in-land. The learned Single Judge granted reconveyance; the State appealed, arguing that, as a matter of right, a defaulter cannot seek reconveyance and that the Government's ownership of the land could not be divested except as provided by law. The Division Bench examined earlier Kerala cases—George Jacob (2010) and N.C. Thomas (2015)—and noted that while those decisions held limited or no right to reconveyance in absence of policy, equity requires consideration of restitution where the Government encouraged payment and accepted arrears. Relying on promissory and proprietary estoppel, the Bench held that the petitioner is entitled to reconveyance on payment of the full reconveyance expenses, directing the District Collector to execute the deed within three months. The appeal was dismissed and a restitution order was issued.
This is a High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, MACA 2540 of 2014, challenging a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award for death in a motor vehicle accident on 07.03.2011. Appellants, legal representatives of the deceased Manu K. Babu, sought higher compensation than the Tribunal’s ₹5.5 lakh award, contending the deceased had higher earning capacity. The original petition named the rider (2nd respondent) and the insurer (3rd respondent); the rider was found negligent by the Tribunal, which also held that death resulted from the accident. Respondents 1 and 2 contested, with the insurer admitting insurance coverage but arguing the rider’s negligence was not proven. On appeal, the court relied on documentary evidence (Exts. A12–A15) indicating educational qualifications and better prospective earnings, rejected lower income assumptions, and re-fixed monthly income at ₹10,000. Applying a 40% addition for future prospects and a 50% personal expenditure deduction, with a multiplier appropriate to the deceased’s age (22), the court arrived at ₹11,81,000, and after applying adjustments for loss of dependency, loss of consortium (per Pranay Sethi), and loss of estate, increased the compensation to ₹11,76,000 as additional compensation with 7.5% interest from the date of filing until realization. The 3rd respondent’s liability for interest was stated as exonerated by a prior order. The appeal is allowed; court-fee implications apply for excess, and payment is directed within two months of certifying copy.
This appeal challenges a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award (O.P.(MV) 1252/2005) that awarded compensation to the descendants of Mrs. Santha, who sustained serious injuries in a motor vehicle collision on 15/03/2005 and subsequently died by self-immolation on 24/06/2005. The tribunal disposed of O.P.(MV) Nos. 1252/2005, 1253/2005 and 1756/2005 by a common award, directing the insurer to deposit Rs.3,18,700 with interest in favour of the petitioner. The appellant, New India Assurance Company Ltd., contends that the suicide bears no connection to the accident; that the medical records suggesting neuropsychological decline were not proven by examining the treating doctor; and that the Division Bench’s Venugopal v. T.L. Paulson and Others (2008 (4) KLT 920) is not applicable. The respondents argue that there is sufficient corroborative evidence—PW1’s testimony, Ext. A5 CT scan indicating brain injury, Ext. A6 medical certificate, and Ext. A10 final police report—that the deceased’s mental dejection resulted from the injuries and led to suicide, thus linking death to the accident. The court ultimately follows the Venugopal dictum, accepts the causal connection in light of the medical and police records, and holds that the ultimate cause of death can be attributed to the motor accident. Consequently, the impugned award is maintained and MACA is dismissed without costs.
This High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, heard MACA No. 1406 of 2009 on 7 August 2023, challenging an MACT (Pala) award in O.P.(M.V) 06/2006 dated 15 October 2008. The appellants, led by Chandran (deceased) and his legal heirs Omana Chandran, Ratheesh Chandran, Deepu Chandran and Deepa Chandran (impleaded 2–5), sought higher compensation for injuries sustained when a motorcycle KA-21/E-4719 struck the petitioner on the Pala–Ramapuram road. The Tribunal found the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding, awarded Rs 15,500, and directed the insurer to pay with 9% interest from 03-01-2006 along with costs. The appellants argued the monthly income should be Rs 6,000 (head load worker) and criticized the 1/3 deduction for personal expenses; they contended Ext.A9 (disability certificate) showing 12% permanent disability was not properly considered; they also sought reception of additional medical bills as extra evidence. Respondents contended the Tribunal’s fixation of monthly income as Rs 2,000 (after 1/3 deduction) was reasonable, that Ext.A9 was not examined, and that the other heads of compensation were adequate. The Court referenced Ramachandrappa v. Manager (2011) 13 SCC 236 to fix monthly income at Rs 5,000 for 2005 and proceeded to enhance several heads of compensation, totaling Rs 73,106 as additional compensation with interest, while allowing reception of medical bills in part. The appeal is allowed to some extent with enhanced reliefs.
