MACA Nos. 607/2015; 732/2015; 746/2015; 748/2015; 968/2015; 1044/2015; 1046/2015; 1060/2015 MACA Nos. 607/2015 and connected matters arise from a common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur, dated 13 November 2014, in OP(MV) Nos. 516/2007, 517/2007, 518/2007 and 227/2008, arising from a motor accident on 16 February 2007 involving a KSRTC bus, a Maruti car and a second car. The claimants contended the KSRTC bus driver and the Maruti car driver were negligent, causing the Maruti to hit the KSRTC bus and subsequently the Alto car, resulting in deaths and injuries. The Tribunal held both drivers liable, with 75% of the liability on the Maruti driver and 25% on the Alto driver, directing the insurer of the Alto car to satisfy 75% of the award. The fifth respondent insurer challenged on grounds of the Maruti policy being ‘Act only’ and contested the negligence findings. The High Court, after reappraising the evidence, set aside the Alto-driver finding and held the KSRTC bus driver and the Maruti driver to share liability equally (50:50). It exonerated the Maruti insurer on the basis of an ‘Act-only’ policy and revised the quantum in light of Supreme Court standards on income, future prospects, and loss of consortium. The judgment disposes of all connected MACAs with directions for modification of awards and enforcement of liability among the joint tortfeasors, including the insurer’s deposit.
R.P.484/2023 in W.P.(C).No.13204/2021 This is a review petition filed by K. Babu (third party) challenging the High Court of Kerala’s earlier order directing the translocation of the wild elephant ‘Arikkomban’ from its habitat to the Parambikulam Tiger Reserve. The Kerala High Court, while delivering the order on 12 April 2023, reaffirms the state’s duty to balance animal welfare with human life and property under the Constitution, emphasizing the interlinked relationship between nature and culture, and the animal’s status as a national heritage. The court invokes the parens patriae doctrine and the duty-based approach to environmental protection, noting that fundamental duties under Article 51A are enforceable and that the state and citizens have a shared obligation to protect animals. The petition argued that translocation could threaten local communities, but the court finds no material to support a certainty of such harm and reiterates that relocation is permissible where appropriate safeguards and expert guidance exist. The judgment stresses that the state must prevent conflicts by strengthening infrastructure, monitoring, and safety measures, and, pending long-term solutions, must create local task forces and jagratha samithis. It also cites a recent Supreme Court decision (Muruly M.S.) to require clearance from a High Powered Committee before capture or captive confinement. The petition is disposed by sustaining the earlier order, with a conditional window to identify an alternate site within one week.
This Kerala High Court Motor Accident Claims Appeal arises from an award of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, dated 09.04.2008 in OP(MV) No.91/2002, awarding a total compensation of Rs. 2,20,000 to the legal representatives of Shareefa Beevi, who died after being struck by a motorcycle on 28.08.2001 at Vazhakkala, Palarivattom–Kakkanad road. The appellants, as legal representatives, challenged the findings, contending that the Tribunal erred in fixing the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 1,500 when the evidence showed earnings of Rs. 4,800 per month as a prawn peeling worker; they sought higher compensation and relied on Ext. A5 supporting higher earnings. The respondent insurer admitted the policy but contested the liability and claimed the death was not solely due to injuries. The Tribunal held the rider responsible and directed deposit of the awarded amount with 6% interest. On appeal, the High Court found the income assessment unjustified, discarding oral and documentary evidence, and, applying the Supreme Court’s Pranay Sethi guidelines (as cited in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi), re-evaluated compensation: monthly income raised to Rs. 3,000, 40% future prospects, multiplier 16, and 1/3 deduction for personal expenses. The Court recomputed to Rs. 4,43,600 as total additional compensation, with Rs. 44,000 per head for loss of consortium and Rs. 16,500 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses, while reducing other heads. Interest at 7.5% p.a. from filing until realization was awarded, with payment within two months from certified copy, and the MACA was allowed accordingly.
This Kerala High Court judgment deals with MACA No.1763 of 2016 challenging a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award for a fatal 2012 accident involving Gopalakrishnan. The petitioners—wife, children and mother of the deceased—sought enhancement of compensation awarded under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal had found negligence and awarded Rs.9,50,200, directing the insurer to pay. The appellants argued that the deceased’s income was understated; the income evidence suggested he was a deckhand/fisherman (Rs.24,000 per month), but the Tribunal used a much lower figure (Rs.6,000). The insurer contested the higher figure as unjustified. The High Court reconsiders quantum, applying Ramachandrappa to fix a notional income, and Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma for future prospects, dependency, and the multiplier. The court fixes notional monthly income at Rs.8,500 (coolie), adds 10% future prospects, and applies a 13-multiplier; it deducts 1/4 for living expenses. It revises heads: loss of estate and funeral expenses to Rs.18,150 each; loss of consortium to Rs.2,42,000; pain and suffering Rs.25,000. Total enhanced compensation becomes Rs.14,00,250, with 8% interest. The appeal is allowed in part; the insurer must deposit the amount within two months for subsequent distribution as per Tribunal’s ratio.
This High Court judgment revisits a motor accident claim appeal arising from an award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the Tribunal at Pala. The appellant, Sandeep Chandy, sustained injuries in a road accident on 28 November 2010; he claimed Rs 11,46,000, reduced to Rs 1,88,850 by the Tribunal. The appellant challenges the Tribunal’s quantum, arguing that the Tribunal incorrectly fixed his income at Rs 6,000 per month, ignoring Exhibit A14 which shows a salary around Rs 13,000 as a Khalasi. The insurer challenged the evidence of income and also disputed negligence; nevertheless, the Tribunal held the driver negligent and allocated liability to the insurer. The High Court undertakes a de novo reassessment guided by Supreme Court precedents: Ramachandrappa fixes notional income for a coolie (Rs 10,000); Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma govern future prospects (40%) and multiplier (17); Manikantan G. clarifies the need to refer disability certificates to a medical board if necessary. On reassessment, the court increases the period of income replacement, awards enhanced amounts on head of loss of earning, transport, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, and fixes permanent disability at 10% with proportional escalation. The result is a total enhanced sum of Rs 5,21,350, payable with interest within two months, with disbursement to follow.
MACA 514/2011 & Connected Cases (MACA 542/2011, MACA 1539/2011, MACA 1543/2011) This is a consolidated Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arising from multiple petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging awards for injuries and death in the April 5, 2003 Maruti van accident KL-03/7072, near Machingal, which left Martin dead and several claimants injured. The High Court of Kerala, in a common judgment by Justice Basant Balaji, re-evaluates the awards passed by the MACT, Ernakulam across four MACAs (514/2011, 542/2011, 1539/2011, 1543/2011). The court scrutinizes the deceased’s notional income, the application of future prospects (40%), and the appropriate multiplier (15), and recalculates loss of dependency and other heads including loss of estate, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, and transportation. It also addresses head-wise claims such as loss of amenities, disfiguration, and pain and suffering, and the legality of passenger liability in light of Rule 221 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and the policy conditions. The Court rejects duplicative awards where applicable and clarifies the liability of the insurer to pay enhanced compensation with 7.5% interest, while permitting recovery from the insured where warranted. All other Tribunal determinations remain confirmed.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA) from Kerala High Court, challenging the MACT, Pala award in O.P.(M.V) No.693/2010 (dated 28 Feb 2013) concerning the death of Babu, who was struck by an autorickshaw (KL-5/M-4223). The appellants are Sujamma (widow), and the legal representatives of two minors (Sreekutty and Jithamon), seeking enhanced compensation for the death of Babu, who allegedly earned by running a Thattukada and more. The Tribunal found the driver negligent and awarded approximately ₹5.33 lakh, directing the insurer to deposit with interest. The appellants contended that the monthly income of the deceased was under-estimated (4,500 instead of 6,000), that bystander expenses and nourishment costs were not awarded, and that gains from constitutional bench principles (loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of consortium) were not properly considered. The appellant relied on Pranay Sethi to argue for higher heads and also contested the post-mortem calculations. The High Court, while upholding the finding of negligence, recalculated the compensation: it fixed monthly income at ₹6,000 with a 25% addition for future prospects, yielding ₹7,500 monthly; applied a 13 multiplier and 1/3 deduction, leading to a revised dependency amount of ₹7,80,000. It granted additional amounts for bystander expenses, nourishment, loss of consortium (₹1,17,000), loss of estate and funeral (₹16,500 each), and reduced/purged certain heads (pain and suffering, love and affection). The appeal was allowed with modifications directing the insurer to pay the enhanced amount with 7.5% interest, and preserving the insurer’s recovery rights.
This is a criminal appeal by K.R. Muhammed Nazer, a former Village Officer at Wagamon, challenging a 2013 conviction under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) PC Act for demanding and accepting a bribe to issue a location map. The prosecution alleged that on 28.3.2006 the accused, while performing his duties, demanded ₹500 for issuing a location map and later collection of ₹650 from the defacto complainant PW1; a pre-arranged trap by VACB led to the recovery of tainted currency (MO1) and a positive phenolphthalein test. Trial evidence centered on PW1 (de facto complainant and decoy), PW2 (independent witness) and PW9 (the trap officer). The defence contended there was no proven demand or acceptance, the money was planted by the decoy witness to frame the officer, and that DW1 was a paid witness; the court below rejected this defence. The High Court examined the evidence and found the appellant’s admission of possession of tainted notes, the sequence of events, and the positive chemical tests sufficient to prove the demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. It also observed the sentences were reasonable. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and the sentence, clarifying that circumstantial evidence can establish demand and acceptance even in the absence of direct testimony.
This revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenges the Family Court, Thalassery’s maintenance order in MC No.106/2019. The Family Court had directed maintenance of Rs.10,000 each for Akhila Noushad (wife) and her minor son Lamar Moideen, payable from 02.04.2019. The revision petitioner, Noushad Flourish, contends that the petitioners failed to prove the wife’s adulterous life and that the maintenance award should be modified in light of Khula proceedings and changing circumstances. The respondents argue that the wife and child require support due to lack of independent means, and point to Annexures A1–A3 suggesting the wife’s extramarital concerns and a Khula petition leading to dissolution of marriage. The Family Court found the wife justified in living separately and granted maintenance based on evidence. The High Court, after examining the evidence, held that the wife’s alleged adulterous life was not conclusively proven and that the Khula proceedings did not fully negate the right to maintenance. Accordingly, it reduced the first petitioner’s maintenance to Rs.7,000 per month for the period 24.07.2019 to 27.05.2021, while maintaining Rs.10,000 per month for the minor from 02.04.2019 onwards. The revision petition is allowed in part and the impugned order modified accordingly.
This writ appeal challenges a 2019 Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court that declined relief against a 2013 EPF determination under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The appellant-bank, a Kerala Urban Co-operative Bank, had engaged deposit collectors/collection agents on commission, but the EPFO did not deposit contributions. The single judge had remitted the matter to the EPF Organisation for giving opportunity to produce documents, following a 2013 judgment Ext.P1. The Bank relied on Karnataka High Court’s WA No.6031/2001 (Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v. The South Kanara Govt. Officer's Co-op. Bank Ltd.) and on a Supreme Court order dated 05-10-2017 (Annexure-A1) laying down parameters to determine whether deposit collectors fall within the “employee” definition under Section 2(f). The Reserve Organization relied on the Division Bench of this Court in South Malabar Gramin Bank v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (2019 (2) KHC 126), which held that wages paid to deposit collectors could fall within the EPF framework. The High Court held that the Assessing Officer did not properly consider the material and the Annexure-A1 parameters, and allowed the appeal, remitting the matter to the second respondent with directions to permit two opportunities to produce documents and to decide within two months. Ext.P4 was quashed, and parties were directed to appear on 24.05.2023.
WP(C) Nos. 23186 of 2022 & connected cases These batch writ petitions challenge Government Order G.O.(M.S.) No.121/2022 dated 07.07.2022 and the Plus One admission prospectus for 2022-23, concerning private aided Higher Secondary Schools in Kerala. The core dispute is over the allocation of management quota seats and the community (quota) seats in PAHS admissions. Historically, management quota was 20%, with community quota (10%) for the community to which the management belonged, and open merit allocations also existed. The Government issued the 2022 order to fix management quota at 20% and to require managements to declare the community to which they belong, with 10% seats for that community to be allotted on merit; if the management did not declare, those seats would convert to merit seats. Petitions by school managers contended this infringed Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and violated vested rights; others argued for merit-based admission and against community-based preferences. The Kerala High Court examined the policy, its constitutional validity, and the right of management. It held that the 10% community quota is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 15, while upholding the 20% management quota as a permissible policy decision. The court directed that the 10% seats be treated as open merit seats to be filled through the Centralized Allotment Process (CAP); admissions already made on declaration shall not be disturbed. The petitions are disposed with these directions, and GO 121/2022’s management quota remains at 20%.
This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by Anoop S. Ayyappan and Abhimanyu S. Ayyappan seeking a mandamus to compel the 3rd respondent Devaswom Commissioner to consider Ext.P5, a representation dated 31.01.2023, for permission to perform the Nayattuvili ritual at Erumely Sree Dharma Sastha Temple during the annual festival (2023). The petition alleges a hereditary right to perform Nayattuvili by the petitioners’ father, late T.G. Ayyappan Pillai, who performed the ritual from 1980 to 2021, and that after his death, the 1st petitioner sought to continue this practice in 2022 but was barred by the 4th respondent; the 2022 ritual was conducted by temple staff. The petition also references Ext.P4 in response to an RTI query, and Ext.P6 postal slip evidencing Ext.P5’s submission. The 3rd respondent’s inaction is urged. The respondents contend that the petitioners’ father did not hold any karayma or hereditary right, and that such disputes are factual and civil matters which cannot be resolved via a writ, citing established jurisprudence. The court analyzes the scope of writs, distinguishing civil rights adjudication from remedy under Article 226, and concludes the petition is not maintainable; it dismisses the petition, but leaves open the petitioners’ right to pursue a civil forum to establish any customary right.
Damodaran P. @ Damu, the appellant, was injured in a road accident on 03.02.2018 when a vehicle driven rashly struck him as he stood on the road. He filed OP(MV) No. 330/2019 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalipparamba, seeking Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation, but the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,59,115. The appellant contends the award is inadequate, arguing that the Tribunal erred in fixing the notional income at Rs. 10,500 for only five months despite six months of incapacity; he also seeks higher compensation for Pain and Suffering and, though not strictly claimed, Loss of Amenities in light of the extent of injuries. The insurer counters that the Tribunal’s computations are correct and prays for dismissal of the appeal. The High Court, after examining the evidence, notes there is no permanent disability and applies the Ramachandrappa standard to determine notional income for 2018, holding that Rs. 11,500 should be adopted and six months used for the period of incapacity. The court finds that Loss of Earnings should be Rs. 69,000, and awards Rs. 15,000 for Loss of Amenities and Rs. 6,300 for Bystander’s Expenses (calculated at Rs. 700 per day for nine days). Pain and Suffering remains as awarded. The appeal is allowed; enhanced sums plus 8% interest from filing and costs on the enhanced sums; deposit within two months.
This High Court of Kerala, in OP(KAT) No.356 of 2021, deals with delay in payment of DCRG (death-cum-retirement gratuity) to a former Director of the Ground Water Department and the consequent grant of interest by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) in OA No.297/2018. The petitioners (State of Kerala and the Director, Ground Water Department) challenge the Tribunal’s 04.01.2021 order directing payment of interest on the delayed DCRG from the retirement date (01.06.2015) to the date of disbursement (09.02.2018), at 8% per annum. The applicants in OA, two senior officers, alleged long delay in releasing DCRG despite gratuity having been sanctioned on 25.08.2015; the delay purportedly stemmed from administrative action initiated by the Vigilance Officer (3rd respondent) and various government reports. The Tribunal concluded that the delay was unjustified, relied on a Supreme Court principle that gratuity and pension rights are valuable rights, and warranted interest for the lag. The High Court, while upholding the laches in payment, modified the Tribunal’s start date for interest to 06.08.2015 (date of execution of a bond under Rule 116 KS.R.) and directed payment of interest at 8% from that date to 09.02.2018, to be completed within two months. The decision cites State of Kerala v. V.M. Padmanabhan Nair to justify penalties for delay and confirms that pensionary benefits are not mere bounty. The matter is disposed of with the modified direction.
A bail application (B.A.No.8201 of 2021) by Akhil, the sixth accused in Crime No.1225 of 2020 registered at Anthikkad police station for offences including murder (Section 302 IPC) and allied provisions read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, is decided by the Kerala High Court. The applicant has been in custody since 14 October 2020. The prosecution alleges a premeditated murder resulting from a gang rivalry in the Anthikkad area, with two rival groups allegedly led by Sumesh and Smith; the deceased Nidhil is described as a member of one side of this rival faction. The prosecution contends that the accused conspired over several days, attacked Nidhil with deadly weapons in broad daylight near Mangattukara Vattukulam temple, dragged him from a car, and then fled, leaving the injured man to die. It is argued that granting bail would threaten witnesses, permit retaliation, and risk absconding, especially given the accused’s criminal history (six prior cases). The defense argues false implication. The High Court cites well-established bail principles from Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav, and related judgments, noting the gravity of the offence and risk to witnesses. After considering these factors, the court holds that the petitioner is not entitled to bail and dismisses the application, directing the Sessions Court to expedite the trial.
WP(C) Nos.11517/2020 & con.cases (and connected WP Nos. 12302/2020, 14388/2020, 15500/2020, 15873/2020, 15917/2020, 5928/2021, 6858/2021, 11495/2021, 17601/2021, 18031/2021, 27900/2021, 10367/2021, 11907/2021, 12880/2021, 15087/2021, 26321/2021, 12507/2021, 12525/2021, 17666/2021, 17717/2021, 17752/2021, 17758/2021, 17787/2021, 20105/2021, 20113/2021, 25770/2021, 3350/2022, 5963/2022, 6375/2022, 1513/2022, 1942/2022, 4498/2022, 7185/2022) The judgment bundles and disposes a large cluster of writ petitions challenging siting restrictions and consents for retail petroleum outlets in Kerala. The petitions arise from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) and CPCB guidelines, National Green Tribunal orders, and various government circulars linked to siting, consent to establish/operate, and construction permissions. Central to the court’s analysis is the Supreme Court’s decision in Indian Oil Corporation v. V.B. Menon & Ors. (2023 SCC OnLine SC 257), which held that there is no legal requirement to obtain consent to establish or operate for retail petroleum outlets; instead, adherence to CPCB guidelines suffices. The Kerala High Court therefore disposed of the petitions by directing authorities to implement the IOC (supra) guidance, ensuring CPCB guidelines are scrupulously followed, and permitting petitioners to approach authorities if guidelines are violated. The court explicitly clarified that none of the Kerala circulars insisting on siting norms could be strictly enforced in light of IOC, and that the CPCB guidelines should govern; any violations can be addressed by the petitioners. The decision is rendered as a single-judge judgment by Justice T.R. Ravi on 26 July 2023, with instructions to the authorities to act consistent with the IOC ruling and CPCB directives.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1123 OF 2023 This is a High Court of Kerala (Ernakulam) anticipatory bail matter bearing Bail Application No. 1123 of 2023 arising from Crime No. 1812/2022 of Eravipuram Police Station, Kollam. Accused Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 seek anticipatory bail in connection with a serious incident on 24.12.2022, described as forming into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and assaulting the de facto complainant and his friends with the apparent object of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The FIR lists offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326 and 294(b) IPC, with a reference to Section 149 CrPC as well as IPC, 1860. The petitioners contend there were no specific overt acts attributable to them individually; the injuries recorded include those on the head and limbs, sustained by the complainant largely due to acts of the first and second accused, with one co-accused being a minor. They urge that anticipatory bail should be granted with suitable conditions; the State argues there are specific allegations, notably the 3rd accused allegedly using a beer bottle to strike the complainant, and that eight persons assaulted him, necessitating custodial interrogation for a meaningful investigation. After hearing and perusal, the court dismisses the bail application of the 3rd accused while partly allowing bail for accused Nos. 5, 6 and 7 on conditions such as surrender within ten days, bond of Rs. 30,000 with two sureties, cooperation, non-interference, and weekly meetings with the IO for six weeks.
Thomas Cleophas @ Vijayan Thomas, owner in possession of about 3 acres 7.39 cents of land in Maradu Village, sought development permission to subdivide and develop residential plots with common facilities. The petition traced the sequence to 2013 when the Maradu Municipality forwarded the proposal to the Senior Town Planner for approval; reports concluded the land had been converted and was a residential plot per the data bank and gazette notifications, triggering Rule 27(1) of the Kerala Municipal Building Rules. The petitioner argued a prior Gram Panchayat grant for a ground-plus-14 story commercial building in 2006 had lapsed due to recession, and there was no change in circumstances; the area around includes several hotels, hospitals, and a school. The respondents contended the land lies in an agricultural zone per the Structure Plan (Central City of Kochi) and the Kerala Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 restricts non-agricultural development unless the land is converted, with residential construction limited to 300 sq.m. The court relied on Paddy Land Act requirements, the 2007 structure plan scheme, and the 2016 Town and Country Planning regime, concluding the proposed project exceeds the 300 sq.m. residential limit and cannot be granted without conversion. It held the 6 January 2014 Ext.P6 order justified and dismissed the petition. The decision underscores that new statutory frameworks trump earlier permissions where land is agricultural and not converted.
WP(C) Nos.23186 of 2022 & connected cases These batch writ petitions, filed by managers of private aided higher secondary schools, challenge GO(MS) No.121/2022/G.Edn dated 7 July 2022 reducing the management quota in Plus One admissions to 20% and incorporating a directive to declare the school’s community and reserve 10% of seats for that community in the aided sector. The petitions trace the evolution of admission quotas since 1990, including GO Nos. 138/90, 29/91, and 206/2005, and argue that the 10% community quota and the prospectus’ interpretation of management seats violate Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and breach the rights of minority/non-minority institutions. The Centralized Allotment Process (CAP) and the policy aim to ensure merit, transparency, and avoidance of capitation by standardizing quotas across aided/private institutions. The judgment, delivered by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V on 27 July 2022, holds that while the 20% management quota under GO 121/2022 is permissible (policy decision not to be interfered with), the 10% community quota linked to declared communities is arbitrary and unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 15. It directs that the 10% community seats be treated as open merit seats via CAP, while admissions already made on declared-community lines remain undisturbed. The court disposed of the petitions with these directions, emphasizing policy review limits and merit-based admissions.
Manoj, the appellant, was a pillion rider who sustained serious injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 18.06.2004 while travelling on a motorcycle (KL-01-K-5752) driven by the first respondent. He filed OP(MV) No.44/2005 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara, seeking compensation of Rs.11,66,000 for medical treatment, loss of earnings and related heads. The Tribunal held the insurer liable and awarded Rs.14,93,858 along with 9% interest and costs. On appeal, the High Court examined the adequacy of the disability assessment. Ext.X1 showed 60% physical disability, but Manoj suffered paralysis of both lower limbs with loss of sensation and bladder/bowel paralysis, impairing mobility and earning capacity as a Medical Representative. Relying on Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager and the Supreme Court’s decisions in Pranay Sethi, the court held that functional disability should be treated as higher than physical disability, fixing it at 85%. The court also applied the Pranay Sethi framework, reducing future prospects from 50% to 40% for non-permanent employees, after distinguishing permanent employment. Consequently, the court recalculated loss of earning power to Rs.12,13,800 and adjusted bystander expenses to Rs.25,000, with an additional Rs.13,000 acknowledged, culminating in an overall enhanced award. The appeal was allowed, directing payment of the enhanced amount with 8% interest within three months.
