This is a Public Interest Litigation-style writ petition filed in the Kerala High Court (WP(C) No. 2097 of 2023) by Thankachan, appearing in person, challenging eco-sensitive zones (ESZ) in Kerala and seeking constitutional, environmental, social and developmental considerations. The petitioner prayed to stop ESZ activities, argued that ESZ may violate core fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(e), 19(1)(g) and 21, and contended on grounds of natural justice. He additionally sought measures to improve forest quality, reduce man-wild encounters, protect farmers, control “killer plants,” and separate forests from human-occupied areas. On the respondent side, the Special Government Pleader informed the court that, following a Supreme Court reference in Pragnesh Shah v. Dr. Arun Kumar Sharma & Others, the State has filed an interlocutory application and is gathering views from citizens regarding ESZ; local bodies have been directed to submit details, and a report is being prepared for submission to the Supreme Court. The Bench, noting these ongoing processes, allowed the petitioner to submit a detailed representation within five days to respond to ESZ concerns; the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, was directed to consider the representation and pass orders within 15 days, in accordance with law. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, and pending interlocutory applications, if any, were directed to stand closed. The decision emphasizes administrative proceedings over merits at this stage.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5264 OF 2025 This is a bail petition filed before the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, by ArunKrisna (accused No.1) in Crime No.331/2025 of CheruP Police Station, Thrissur. The petitioner is charged under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) including 126(2), 115(2), 296(b), 351(2), 329(4), 110, 74 and 3(5). The prosecution alleges that on 30.03.2025, in furtherance of a common intention with another accused, he trespassed into a nearby flat, restrained the complainant, assaulted him with a knife, uttered obscene words, criminally intimidated and outraged the modesty of the complainant’s mother. The accused is in custody since 01.04.2025. The Public Prosecutor contends that the offence is serious and points to the petitioner’s involvement in another case, opposing bail. The petitioner’s counsel submits readiness to comply with any stringent conditions for bail. The court, while acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations, notes the long custody period and the need for a fair trial. Relying on established bail principles from Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, the court grants bail with conditions. It also cites Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala as applicable. The order emphasizes that bail is the rule, and custody is the exception, and provides for specific conditions and monitoring while the final report is pending.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5321 OF 2025 This is a bail petition filed as B.A. No.5321 of 2025 before the Kerala High Court by Suryan@ Ayyappan, accused in Crime No.32/2025 of Cherpulassery Excise Range, alleging offences under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act for allegedly possessing 9 litres of arrack on 15.03.2025. The petitioner has been in custody since 15.03.2025. The High Court, on 11 April 2025, considered the well-settled bail principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and that the right to a fair trial under Article 21 warrants careful scrutiny of detention. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the alleged offence and the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents but emphasized that indefinite incarceration is unwarranted where bail with stringent conditions can secure both the investigation and the accused’s rights. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court precedents including Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019), Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024 KHC 6431), Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 KHC 6426), and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala (2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260), to reiterate that bail should be granted when criteria are satisfied. Accordingly, the court allowed the application, directing release on bail subject to conditions including a Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties, appearance before the IO, non-evasion of travel, non-commission of similar offences, and the court’s power to cancel bail on violation. Prosecution and victims may apply for bail cancellation if conditions are breached.
WA 489/2023; WA 491/2023; WA 494/2023; WA 495/2023; WA 497/2023; WA 498/2023; WP(C) Nos. 6678/2023; 6774/2023; 6777/2023; 6816/2023; 6878/2023; 6917/2023 The Kerala High Court, in a division bench consisting of K. Vinod Chandran and C. Jayachandran, heard a cluster of writ appeals challenging district-level prohibitions on liquor sale (FL-3 licenses and toddy shops) for festival days in Kollam and Palakkad districts. The impugned orders, issued by District Collectors, prohibited sales within broad police station limits and adjacent areas during events such as Kumbhathiruvathira at Kadakkal, Manappullikavu Vela, and Pattambi Nercha. The petitions argued the restrictions were overbroad, imposed without adequate notice or hearing, and unjustifiably affected licensees' investments. Respondents contended the prohibitions were necessary to preserve public peace amid crowded, multi-faith gatherings, with credible reports of prior disturbances and crime linked to intoxication. The court examined Section 54 of the Abkari Act and Section 151 of CrPC, and compared Mary Kurian (and other precedents) with Aneesh V. District Collector and related cases. It held that the orders were not mere verbatim reproductions, were grounded in police reports and risk to public order, and not all grounds of Mary Kurian applied. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeals and writ petitions, noting the balance between public peace and commercial interests, and left parties to bear costs.
This is a Rent Control Revision (R.C. Rev. No. 301 of 2019) before the High Court of Kerala, concerning eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The revision petitioner-landlord sought eviction of the tenant from a petition scheduled shop on bona fide grounds for his son’s dependent need to start a stationery business. The Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff, Kannur) found the bona fide need genuine and dismissed a plea for protective relief under the provisos to Section 11(3). The Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge IV, Thalassery) allowed the tenant’s appeal, remitting the case for fresh consideration after accepting Exhibit-B1, a 2004-05 property tax assessment extract showing a vacant shop in the landlord’s ownership. The landlord challenged this reversal in revision, arguing that Exhibit-B1 was improperly admitted and that the Appellate Authority erred in relying on it, citing Panoli AliKutty and other authorities about the limited evidentiary value of property tax extracts under Section 26 and the proper scope of additional evidence. The High Court held that the Appellate Authority erred in admitting Exhibit-B1 and remanding the matter solely on that basis. It restored the Rent Control Court’s eviction order, and allowed a six-month period to surrender vacant possession, subject to conditions including an affidavit, arrears payment, and non-induction of third parties. The judgment underscores the strict limits on additional evidence in appeal and the burden on tenants to prove availability of other suitable premises, while reaffirming bona fide need as the trigger for eviction.
A Kerala High Court decision in OP(KAT).No.282 of 2020 arises from OA No.686 of 2015 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The petitioners, petitioners/applicants 3–5, 7, 10 and 12 in OA, along with six other applicants (Vinod T.P., Sanilkumar T.M., Vimal Mohan, Vinayababu, Alex Louis, Sirajudeen V.K.), challenge an order dated 04.10.2019 of the KAT. They had been included in Annexure A1 (rank list) for Driver Grade II posts in Alappuzha district under multiple departments; the rank list expired on 20.06.2015. They contend that, before expiry, eight vacancies for Driver posts under the Directorate of Social Justice within ICDS were reported to PSC on 16.06.2015 and thus were to be filled. The respondents, including PSC and state officers, rely on central directives (Annexure R4(a) and R4(b)) that sanctioned post of drivers under ICDS may be abolished and hence not fillable; The Union Government funds 90% of ICDS, and the directive to hire vehicles rather than filling posts is urged to prevail. The petition argues that mere inclusion in a ranked list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, citing Shankarsan Dash and other decisions; It also invokes the Full Bench ruling in Sheejamol M.C. and Soumya to challenge or support the claim. The High Court ultimately dismisses the OP, holding that the posts are to be treated as abolished and that the state may hire vehicles instead; the main prayers are refused.
WA 710/2015; WA 1013/2015; WA 824/2015; WA 875/2015; WA 882/2015; WA 1005/2015; WA 1006/2015; WA 1376/2018 The batch of writ appeals before the Kerala High Court arises out of challenges to the proviso to Section 8(a)(ii) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) as amended by the Finance Acts of 2008 and 2009. The appellants, several works contractors (private entities) and government-commissioned contractors, contend that the proviso to Section 8(a)(ii) (which imposes a 4% compounded tax on government, KWA and local authority contracts) remains discriminatory and unconstitutional, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court traces the enactment history: Section 8 provides for compounded tax at 3% or 8% for works contracts; amendments via the 2008 Finance Act substituted sub-clause (ii); the 2009 Finance Act retained a proviso for government-related contracts, ensuring a 4% levy for CST-registered CST-importers on such contracts. The appellants argue that the proviso creates an illegitimate disparity between government-commissioned works and private contracts, undermining equality before law. The State justifies the provision as a targeted measure within legislative competence, intended to rationalize tax incidence on government contracts, and emphasizes that the proviso remains within the main enactment’s ambit. After hearing senior counsel for both sides, the court concludes that there is no merit in striking down the proviso, and the batch of appeals is dismissed. The decision hinges on canonical principles of statutory provisos and their relationship to the main enactment.
CRL.M.C. No. 2555 of 2022 RCI Industries & Technologies Ltd (RCI Ltd), along with its Managing Director Rajeev Gupta and Director Mamta Gupta, petitioned under Section 482 CrPC challenging Annexure-A1 complaint filed by South Indian Bank Ltd., Department of Trade Finance Centralised Processing Centre, Ernakulam under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 (PSS Act). The complaint relates to Trade Receivables Discounting/Factoring facilities availed through the TReDS platform via M1xchange, with alleged dishonour of Electronic Funds Transfers and a demand for Rs. 1,50,84,892. The petition argues that the notice under Section 25(1)(c) of the PSS Act must come from the bank; here the information of dishonor was provided by M1xchange (not a bank), hence non-compliance; it contends absence of proper enquiry under Section 202 CrPC before cognizance and that vicarious liability cannot be inferred without explicit averments; it questions the jurisdiction based on Annexure-A3 master buyer agreement with M1xchange and asserts that the transactions occurred in Ernakulam, not Delhi, and that the GST attachment hindered payment. Respondents submit that the platform (TReDS) and M1xchange, sanctioned by RBI under the PSS Act, provide the requisite information and that the cognizance and issuance of process were proper. The High Court, after examining RBI guidelines and statutory provisions, held that information from the platform suffices, cognizance valid, and the processes proper; the petitions are dismissed.
The petitioner, a devotee of Elamakkudy Devaswom under the Travancore Devaswom Board, filed a 226 writ petition seeking mandamus to compel the Devaswom Commissioner to probe alleged mismanagement by the Temple Advisory Committee (5th respondent) with alleged connivance of the Sub Group Officer (1st respondent). She also sought accounts of oil allocated for Nithya Nithanam from Ettumanoor Devaswom and daily utilization of oil in Elamakkudy Devaswom, and to verify inventory of wealth and utensils by opening a locked room. The petitioner, who was nominated as temporary Kazhakam in 2016, claims her removal was retaliatory for exposing irregularities. The pleadings describe investigations into Sapthaham arrangements, attendance lapses, improper handling of offerings, and alleged misappropriation relating to oil and sale of pooja items. Counter-affidavits from respondents recount dismissed duties, allegations of non-performance, and mismanagement by the Temple Advisory Committee. The court situates the dispute in the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, particularly sections 3, 15A, 31 and 31A, and the Rules for Temple Advisory Committees (Clauses 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12). Relying on precedents on temple property protection and fiduciary duties, the court ultimately holds that substantial grounds for relief are lacking and dismisses the petition, while noting certain observations.
This Kerala High Court Criminal Misc. Case (CRL.MC No. 2695 of 2023) concerns a petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by accused Nos.2 to 5 challenging proceedings arising from CC No.1174/2013 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kollam. The accused were charged with offences under Sections 143, 148, 341, 324 and 308 r/w Section 149 IPC, allegedly committed on 04.02.2012 when they formed an unlawful assembly, restrained the complainant, and caused injuries. The informant and the first accused are reported dead. The petition asserts that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and no longer wish to pursue prosecution; a CW2 affidavit from the respondent supports this position. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing proceedings solely on the basis of a settlement, though notes there are no other crimes of serious nature against the petitioners. The court invokes State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan and the earlier decisions in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh to articulate the governing principles. It states that quashing under 482 is permissible where the offence is private in character and the parties have resolved the entire dispute, and not for heinous or public-interest offences or certain statutes such as the Prevention of Corruption Act or offences under the Arms Act, unless evidence justifies it. Balancing gravity, injuries, antecedents, and the amicable settlement, the court ultimately concludes that quashing would serve ends of justice and it allows the petition, quashing the Final Report and proceedings in CC 1174/2013.
This jail appeal under Section 383 Cr.P.C. challenges the conviction of Benny Joseph for the murder of his 75-year-old mother, Thresiamma, under Section 302 IPC, based on circumstantial evidence and post‑incident mental health history. The Kerala High Court (Division Bench) revisits adherence to the legal standard for insanity under Section 84 IPC, the burden of proof, and the procedural safeguards under Section 329 Cr.P.C. The prosecution relies on forensic evidence, eyewitness accounts of no direct sighting, and an extra-judicial confession corroborated by others, while the defense asserts long‑standing paranoid schizophrenia since 1997, with medical opinions indicating unsoundness of mind at the relevant time. The court surveys a century of jurisprudence on legal insanity, including the presumption of sanity, the need for a preponderance of probabilities for insanity defenses, and the inappropriateness of proceeding with a trial when the accused is not fit to stand trial. It highlights deficiencies in the trial process, particularly Section 329 Cr.P.C. inquiries, and the continuous mental health treatment of the accused from 2015 onward. Ultimately, the High Court allows the appeal, sets aside the conviction and life sentence for murder, and acquits the appellant under Section 334 Cr.P.C on the ground of unsoundness of mind, while directing detention in a mental health establishment under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, with reporting obligations to the authorities.
This writ petition, filed by St. Mary’s Orthodox Syrian Church, Erickinchira, and by two of its clergy (the Vicar and the Assistant Vicar), seeks police protection and enforcement of the Supreme Court’s binding directions to ensure that clergy appointed under the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church’s 1934 Constitution conduct religious services in the church, its cemetery, parish hall and related premises without obstruction from Jacobite faction members. The petition asserts that since 1995 the church has been under parallel Jacobite administration, and that only priests appointed under the 1934 Constitution may conduct sacraments; respondents 10–12 (Jacobite faction members) obstruct entry and worship. The court traces the litigation history: a civil suit (Section 92 CPC) was left with leave, transferred to Ernakulam, revocation of leave, and a common judgment in FAO/connected matters; the Supreme Court in KS Varghese v. St. Peter’s & Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church and others (2017) laid down binding directions; Ext.P7 disposed of the appeal, holding the directions would operate in respect of all such churches. The Kerala High Court ultimately held that petitioners, as duly appointed Vicars under the 1934 Constitution, are entitled to police protection to enter the church and conduct services, and directed police to implement Ext.P7 within one month, rejecting challenges based on identity disputes or contempt filings. The judgment emphasizes enforcement of binding Supreme Court orders to maintain law and order and free exercise of religious rights within the recognised church structure.
This is a Kerala High Court writ petition under Article 226 challenging SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the Housing Development Finance Corporation (HDFC) against two borrowers, Nos. 1) Noushad Ottathai and 2) Jaseela Noushad. The borrowers faced a scheduled possession of their property on 18.01.2023 after defaulting on two housing loans and two insurance loans. The petition contends that the default arose largely from the first petitioner’s job loss abroad, and seeks permission to clear arrears through instalments while continuing regular EMI payments. The respondent bank submitted that the total outstanding is around Rs. 43 lakhs, with an overdue figure of about Rs. 17.57 lakh as of the date of hearing, and indicated willingness to grant instalments only if substantial payments are made promptly. The court acknowledged the borrowers’ hardship but invoked established principles from Sundaram BNP Paribas and precedents like Satyawati Tondon and Devi Ispat to allow an instalment-based resolution rather than a outright stay of SARFAESI proceedings. It directed that Rs.3 lakh be paid by 31.01.2023, with the balance to be cleared in 12 equal monthly instalments beginning 28.02.2023, while keeping coercive actions in abeyance and allowing the bank to proceed on default. The order thereby regularises the loan on specified terms while protecting the bank’s interest.
Sabitha V., a bill collector employed by the Vadakkumbad Service Co-Operative Bank, faced termination after a pension distribution complaint in Ward IV. The bank’s three-member enquiry found the petitioner guilty, but crucial procedural gaps marred the process. Notably, no formal charge memo was issued, the enquiry report was not furnished to Sabitha, and the exact details of the proceedings (e.g., number of witnesses, and the nature of evidence) are not on record. Sabitha defended that the delay in payment arose from peculiar circumstances—her reliance on a ward member who later left the country—and she contends she did not misappropriate funds. The bank terminated her on 20.07.2020, prompting this writ petition. The court observed that while a formal enquiry was conducted, the details and the enquiry report were not produced, and it questioned the propriety of proceeding without a charge memo, citing earlier decisions (W.P(C).No.22228 of 2019; Kodancherry Service Co-operative Bank v. Joshy Varghese). However, the court also noted that the petitioner participated in the enquiry and that the absence of a formal charge memo did not per se invalidate the process, pending further consideration. Most crucially, the court held that non-furnishing of the enquiry report prejudiced Sabitha and set aside the termination, directing the bank to supply the report and allow Sabitha to respond before any further action, thereby preserving the right to a fair defence under natural justice, as reinforced by ECIL and related precedents.
This Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA No. 2149 of 2017) before the Kerala High Court arises from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, in OP(MV) No. 786 of 2012, concerning the death of the appellants’ son in a road accident on 30 June 2011 when his motorcycle was struck by a negligent vehicle. The appellants, parents of the deceased, challenge the Tribunal’s compensation as grossly inadequate, arguing that the Tribunal used an unreal notional income of Rs.5,000 per month despite evidence that the deceased engaged in real estate and agency work. They also contend the award under heads such as Funeral Expenses and Loss of Consortium is too low. The Insurance Company defends the Tribunal’s calculations and seeks dismissal. The court, with the consent of both sides, admits the appeal for disposal on the undisputed record. The judge adopts Ramachandrappa’s standard of a notional income of Rs.8,000 per month and, applying Pranay Sethi, holds that, for a self‑employed deceased, future prospects should be 40% (not 50%). The court holds that Rs.40,000 for Loss of Consortium is warranted and that certain heads (Pain and Suffering, Care and Protection, Loss of Earnings) need pruning, while awarding Rs.80,000 for Loss of Consortium, Rs.15,000 Funeral Expenses, and reducing Loss of Estate to Rs.15,000; leaving other heads unchanged. The order also increases dependency compensation to Rs.12,09,600, fixes interest at 8% with 109 days’ delay excluded, and directs deposit of enhanced amounts within two months, with proportionate costs on the enhanced sums.
Mat.Appeal Nos.148 & 245 of 2014 These consolidated matrimonial appeals arise from OP(HMA) No.1161/2013 in the Family Court, Attingal. The husband filed for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of matrimonial cruelties. The Family Court dismissed the divorce petition but granted a decree for judicial separation and, controversially, declared the husband to be the biological father of the child Neelina and awarded Rs. 10 lakh to the child, though the child was not a party to the proceedings. Ext. C1, a DNA report, indicated paternity in favor of the husband, but the court relied on the report while matters of prayers, pleadings and jurisdiction extended beyond the relief sought. The husband challenged the judgment on grounds that there was no pleadings or prayer for declaration of paternity or maintenance and that the court erred in granting judicial separation without valid grounds for divorce. The wife cross-appealed, arguing that the decree for judicial separation was unwarranted and based on unsustainable grounds. The High Court, applying the law on pleadings and the scope of Section 13A, held that the Family Court erred in granting paternity declaration and child compensation and in granting judicial separation without a valid ground for divorce. The appeals were disposed of by allowing the husband’s appeal in part and the wife’s appeal, with costs.
ABNCO VIE WIN ENT. PVT LTD (the petitioner) challenged Exts. P5 and P8 which disqualified its bid for the Desiltation of Chulliar Dam on Turn-Key Basis, awarded by the Kerala Irrigation Infrastructure Development Corporation (KIIDC). The Government of Kerala had accorded in-principle approval for the work (G.O. Rt. No. 21/2021/WRD dated 07.01.2021), with the condition that the Irrigation Department monitor progress. The tender bids were re-tendered after two earlier rounds failed; PAC estimated at Rs. 37,60,18,437/-. After evaluating the technical bids, Ext. P4 purportedly admitted the petitioner’s bid, but Ext. P5 informed rejection within half an hour, allegedly based on the Pre-Qualification Committee’s 24.03.2022 minutes (Ext. P8). The petitioner contends that it had substantial dredging experience and that its Mercator Limited certificate shows works undertaken by the petitioner; the pre-qualification process, the scoring of dredging experience, and the handling of documents (e.g., partnership agreement not registered, affidavits) were arbitrary and mala fide. Respondents countered that the evaluation followed Section III of the bid document and that KOOTHRADANS INFRASTRUCTURE LLP had far superior qualifications (81/100 vs 60 minimum). The High Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that judicial review is limited to illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety and should defer to the employer’s technical interpretation, citing Tata Cellular, Afcons, Silpi and NG Projects. The petition is thus dismissed, and the award stands.”
W.P.(C).No. 25083 of 2015 This writ petition challenges the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram’s jurisdiction to entertain a complaint brought by Prabitha Sumod Sumod Bhavan seeking compensation for alleged deficiency in service by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) in relation to its bulletin subscription. The petitioners argue that the KPSC is a constitutional body performing statutory duties and not a service provider; Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act excludes constitutional bodies from being engaged in hiring services, and Section 2(d) defines a consumer as someone who hires a service for consideration. The petition further contends that the bulletin publication is an official informational publication, not a commercial service, and the cost charged (Rs. 100 for 24 issues) reflects printing/shipping expenses rather than an actual service hire. The petition cites the 1993 Kerala High Court decision in KPSC v. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to support the view that a public service commission cannot be treated as rendering a service under the CP Act. The court notes the absence of the petitioner’s appearance and emphasizes the need to protect constitutional functions from being treated as ordinary consumer transactions. The High Court ultimately allows the writ petition and quashes the proceedings before the 3rd respondent; the matter turns on the statutory definition of a consumer and the unique constitutional status of service commissions.
CRL.REV.PET NO.829 OF 2022 This is a criminal revision under sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. by P.R. Sugasree challenging the conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the related appellate judgments. The complainant alleges three cheques totaling Rs. 1,43,500 were dishonoured on presentation with the endorsement “Payment stopped by Drawer.” The accused contends that the cheques were given only as security and not to discharge any legally enforceable debt, and that no debt existed when the cheques were presented; he also claims that amounts were paid. The trial court convicted under section 138 NI Act, imposing imprisonment and a monetary fine, which was partly modified by the appellate court. In revision, the High Court emphasizes its supervisory, not appellate, role and cautions against re‑weighing evidence, except in cases of gross miscarriage of justice. It relies on statutory principles and decisions including Rangappa v. Mohan, Bir Singh and Kalamani Tex to reiterate that once the drawer’s signature on a cheque is established, presumptions under sections 118 and 139 NI Act arise in favor of the complainant and that the burden shifts to the accused to rebut by preponderance of probabilities. The High Court concludes that the concurrent findings are not perverse and dismisses the revision petition, directing the accused to appear for sentence on a specified date with execution deferred until then.
This motor accident claim relates to an appeal by the insurer against an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palai, in O.P.(MV). No.1053 of 2014, for the death of Varghese arising from a collision with a bus on 22.12.2013. Varghese, aged 51, was employed as an Office Attendant in the High Court of Kerala with a monthly salary of Rs.22,822. The Tribunal found the bus driver negligent, and the insurer liable to pay compensation of Rs.27,50,986 with 9% interest. The insurer challenged the quantum, particularly the head of loss of dependency, arguing that applying a multiplier of 11 to cover the post‑retirement period overstates the amount. It relied on Puttamma v. K.L Narayana Reddy and Valli R. and Others v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. to contend that the post‑retirement income stream cannot be treated uniformly for computing compensation. The respondents countered that the tribunal’s calculation was correct and that the other heads of compensation were reasonable, including pain and suffering given the prolonged treatment leading to death. The Judge, citing the Supreme Court decisions, held that the law does not permit a split multiplier for in‑service and post‑retirement earnings and that the deceased’s pre‑death pain and suffering can be included under the Kerala Torts (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1976. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed and the Tribunal’s award confirmed.
