Naveen, the appellant-claimant, sustained injuries in a road accident when his auto rickshaw collided with a speeding lorry driven by the second respondent. He filed OP(MV)No.120/2006 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, seeking compensation of Rs 3,00,000, though the Tribunal awarded only Rs 1,38,811 after limiting the claim. The appeal challenges the Tribunal’s liability and its apportionment of contributory negligence at 50% against the appellant. The appellant contends that Ext.X1 (CD file) and Ext.B2 (Scene Mahazar) record that the southern portion of the road was unmotorable, and that his client’s vehicle was in the southern lane, not the northern, thus undermining the basis for contributory negligence. PW1 PW2 testified the accident occurred on the southern portion, while the insurer’s counsel argued that the lorry’s high speed and the northern-side involvement justify contributory negligence by the auto rickshaw. The appellant also disputes the Tribunal’s reduction of disability from 20% to 10% and argues for notional income of Rs 5,000 as per Ramachandrappa. The High Court, after reviewing Ext.B2 and other evidence, finds that while the southern portion was unmotorable, it does not decisively prove fault, and attributes responsibility primarily to the lorry’s speed. The appeal is allowed: 50% contributory negligence is set aside, disability fixed at 20%, permanent disability compensation raised to Rs 2,04,000, interest at 7%, with enhanced amount subject to costs; other Tribunal findings remain intact.
Shaju, the appellant, filed MACA No.1650/2011 challenging the MACT Thrissur's award in OP(MV) 3225/2004 for injuries arising from a 25.06.2004 motor-vehicle accident involving a tempo van KL-08/N-108. The Tribunal held the driver negligent and the insurer (3rd respondent) liable, awarding Rs 43,000 with 8% interest and costs. The appellant argued that his disability certificate Ext. A16 shows 15% permanent impairment; he claimed a monthly income of Rs.4,500 from the business of selling sawdust, but the Tribunal used Rs.2,500 as income and applied a 2% disability, which undercompensated him. Citing Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., the appellant asserted that in 2004 an ordinary worker’s income could reasonably be fixed at Rs.4,500 in the absence of definitive evidence. He also pressed for higher compensation for loss of income during his six-month incapacity, loss of amenities, and increased damages for pain and suffering, arguing that the medical certificate should be accepted even without expert examination. The court, after reviewing the material and the cited authority, accepted the 15% disability, adopted Rs.4,500 monthly income, applied the appropriate multiplier, and recalculated the award. It awarded an additional Rs.1,74,400, directed deposit by the insurer within three months at 8% interest, and costs, thereby partly allowing the appeal.
This Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case challenges an order under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act extending the investigation period and authorising detention for a further period of 180 days. The petitioner, Sabarinath, the first accused, challenges the order of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram, which extended detention after remand for 176 days and allowed a further extension to one year. The petitioner argues the court failed to comply with the statutory mandates of Section 36A(4) and that the accused was not properly informed of the filing of the extension application or given a meaningful opportunity to object; the information allegedly reached the accused only through the Jail Superintendent, with no clear record of direct notice. The Public Prosecutor counters that informing the accused about the extension suffices and that the accused’s presence was effectively secured at the hearing. The judgment surveys precedents including Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI (1994) 5 SCC 410, Jigar v. State of Gujarat (2022) SCC Online SC 1290, Hitendra Vishnu Thakur, and Subhas Yadav, to emphasise the need for the accused to be informed and to have an opportunity to object, and for the Public Prosecutor to independently appraise progress with reasons for extension. The court ultimately finds the order illegal for failure to properly inform the accused and grant him a chance to object, quashes the impugned extension and related bail denial, and grants default bail under CrPC 167(2) with specified conditions. Annexures reveal the certified report, order, and bail order associated with CMP 961/2023 and related proceedings.
This High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, heard MACA 2105 of 2013, an appeal by Narayani and others (legal heirs of Krishnankutty) challenging the 12.11.2012 award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P.(M.V) 425/2012 arising from Krishnankutty’s death in a motor accident on 21.04.2009. The deceased, a stage carriage bus victim, was electrocuted when the bus allegedly collided with a live line at a bus stop; the owner, driver and insurer and KSEB and its employees were protested. The Tribunal held the bus driver liable for rash and negligent driving, awarding Rs 6,12,000 against the insurer while absolving KSEB. The appellants contended that compensation was unreasonably low and that notional income should be enhanced in light of Ramachandrappa v. Manager and Pranay Sethi's guidelines for conventional heads and future prospects. The respondents argued the award was fair and the evidence insufficient to raise income or liability further. The High Court reassessed the compensation, fixing monthly income at Rs 7,000, adding 25% for future prospects, applying a 14-year multiplier, and deducting one-fourth for personal expenses. It held Rs 11,02,500 as loss of dependency and awarded Rs 5,67,000 previously; added Rs 1,66,000 for loss of consortium and other heads, arriving at Rs 6,99,500 as additional compensation, with 7.5% interest from filing till realization, excluding 112 days. MACA is allowed; insurer directed to pay within two months per Circular 03/2019.
This MACA arises from a motor-accident claim where the legal heirs of Gopi sought compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act for injuries and death arising from a KSRTC bus accident on 27.09.2009 near Milekavala. The Tribunal, in OP(MV) No.250/2010, awarded Rs 6,63,272 (rounded to Rs 6,63,300) with 50% contribution attributed to the deceased. The appellants contended that evidence did not support the deceased’s 50% negligence and challenged the quantum of compensation. They also argued for re-fixation of monthly income since Gopi, a tailor, was earning more than the Tribunal’s notional Rs 3,500/month, and that Pranay Sethi principles should apply to determine future prospects and several heads of compensation (loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of consortium). The respondents contested the 50% contributory negligence finding. The High Court re-evaluated the case, fixing the deceased’s monthly income at Rs 7,000 (citing lack of evidence but reasonable in 2009), and reducing the future-prospects addition from 30% to 25% in line with Pranay Sethi. It maintained the multiplier of 13, and deducted 1/4th for personal expenses. The court computed enhanced compensation heads: loss of dependency, loss of consortium (Rs 1,80,000), loss of estate (Rs 16,500), and funeral expenses (Rs 11,500), with total additional compensation of Rs 6,24,478 and interest at 7.5% from petition filing. The court set aside the Tribunal’s 50% contribution finding and held the driver liable, directing the KSRTC to pay the enhanced amount within two months; MACA stands allowed.
MFA (Forest) No. 163 of 2012 The petitioner/appellant, Jassims Hollow Bricks and Stone Crusher Valamthottu Mattilayam, challenged the Forest Tribunal’s 2010 order under the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003, arguing that the scheduled property—15 acres in Thondernad Village, Wayand—was not ecologically fragile as on 02.06.2000 and was long cultivated with crops such as coffee, pepper and areca. The property allegedly passed through several transfers and was ultimately purchased by the appellant in 2007; Exts.A3 and A4 under the Vesting Act allegedly recognize plantation status and thus exempt the land from EFL vesting under Section 3(1). The Forest Department contended that the land is ecologically fragile, contiguous to vested forest, and supports natural vegetation, with evidence of forest trees, pepper, areca and even a quarry; the non-debt clause in Section 3 and the EFL’s definitions were stressed. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. for failing to prove non-ecological fragility or principal cultivation; the appellants failed to take out a commission and to examine witnesses to establish the status as on 02.06.2000. The High Court, upholding the Tribunal’s reasoning, held that the burden of proof lies on the applicant and confirmed the impugned order, dismissing the appeal and directing parties to bear costs.
This is a criminal appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 filed by accused no.19 (A19), Iyyappan, challenging the Special Court for the Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam’s order dated 24 January 2023 in Crl.M.P.67/2022 in S.C. No.2/2021/NIA/KOC, which rejected his bail plea under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The appellant was originally arrayed as A27 in S.C.No.2/2021 with charges including offences under IPC (Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 122, 471), the UAP Act (Sections 18, 18A, 20, 38, 39), and Arms Act-related provisions, together with Kerala Forest Act offences. The investigation originated with a 2017 crime and culminated in NIA taking over in 2021, with a video identification conducted on 07/01/2022 linking the appellant to the crime. The prosecution relied on the testimony of CW204 (Shobha, approver), CW196 and CW197 (neighbors), and the video clip, contending a prima facie case exists and that 43D(5) UAP Act bars bail. The appellant contends the approver had not implicated him in earlier statements, the video identification is unreliable, and reliance on such identification (especially in the presence of an officer) should be questioned in light of Vernon v. State of Maharashtra and Watali. The High Court upheld the trial court’s finding, dismissed the appeal, and closed any pending interlocutories.
MACA NO. 1502 OF 2015 & MACA NO. 1942 OF 2015 This Kerala High Court judgment deals with two Motor Accident Claims Appeals (MACA Nos. 1502 of 2015 and 1942 of 2015) arising from OP(MV) No.1257/2011 filed in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, for the death of Mariyamma in a car accident on 19.09.2011. Seven claimants, including two sisters and the siblings of Mariyamma, sought compensation from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., the insurer of the vehicle. The Tribunal held negligence on the driver and the insurer liable, awarding Rs.4,73,000 with interest. The appellants challenged the quantum, while the insurer challenged the quantum and the basis of dependency. The High Court undertook a detailed reappraisal, noting that Mariyamma was unmarried and living separately from the claimants; relying on Joseph v. Giji Varghese, it held the loss of dependency would not be available, and compensation should be under the head loss of estate for the legal heirs. It adopted Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq to fix notional monthly income at Rs.8,000 for 2011 and treated the deceased as aged about 60 for future prospects. It recalculated loss of estate to Rs.3,16,800 and awarded Rs.40,000 each for loss of love and affection to the first two claimants (Rs.80,000 total) though other heads remained largely as awarded by the Tribunal. Ultimately, given the marginal difference, the appeals were dismissed, and the Tribunal’s award was confirmed.
M.A.C.A. No. 1407 of 2021 On 30.04.2015, while riding a motorcycle, the appellant sustained injuries in a collision with a jeep driven rashly by the 2nd respondent. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Kollam held the 2nd respondent negligent and directed joint and several liability, awarding Rs 22,68,800 as compensation. The appellant challenged the award in MACA No. 1407 of 2021, seeking enhancement. The appellant’s counsel argued that the evidence did not exclude a higher income: the appellant, aged 19 at the time, claimed to earn about Rs 25,000 per month as a tailor; the Tribunal, in the absence of proof, fixed only a notional Rs 8,250. The matter turned on the proper assessment of income, loss of earning capacity and future prospects. The High Court relied on Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar for the principles governing LOE(C) and on later Supreme Court authority (Pranay Sethi, Jagdish v Mohan) to hold that future prospects must be added, especially for younger and self-employed claimants. It also cited Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq to illustrate the baseline for notional income. The Court fixed a monthly notional income of Rs 10,000 for 2015, allowed 40% future prospects, and, applying the principles, recalculated loss of earning power and other heads. The Tribunal’s awards of pain and suffering and loss of amenities were left intact; bystander’s expenses were adjusted. The appeal was allowed and enhanced compensation of Rs 2,21,300 with 8% interest and costs, with funds to be transferred to the insurer.
Shameela, the 2nd accused in Crime No.895/2024 of Rajakkad Police Station, Idukki, approaches the Kerala High Court seeking bail under Section 482 CrPC. The prosecution alleges offences under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC, arising from an alleged employment visa scam in which the complainant was induced to pay money for a UK visa, allegedly through the first accused; Rs. 16 lakhs were involved, with Rs. 8 lakhs transferred to Shameela’s account on 3.11.2023 and a further Rs. 8 lakhs to the husband of Shameela on 9.11.2023. The defence contends that Shameela is merely the wife of the 3rd accused and had no direct financial dealings with the complainant, claiming she did not participate in the alleged transaction, and expresses willingness to comply with stringent bail conditions if released. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, highlighting alleged criminal antecedents. The court notes that custodial interrogation is not necessary at this stage and reiterates the broad bail principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Supreme Court and Kerala authorities. It relies on Chidambaram, Siddharth, Joginder Kumar, Manish Sisodia, Sushila Aggarwal, and Anzar Azeez to justify cautious bail with conditions. Ultimately, the court grants bail with conditions: appearance before the IO within two weeks for interrogation; if arrest is proposed, a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties; ongoing cooperation; restrictions on leaving India; prohibition on committing similar offences; and potential bail cancellation for violations, with authority reserved to the jurisdictional court to recover ill-gotten amounts if necessary.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5092 OF 2025 This Kerala High Court bail order concerns Muhammad Naseef, the petitioner in BAIL APPL. NO. 5092 OF 2025, in Crime No. 13/2025 of Varappuzha Excise Range, Ernakulam, registered under Section 22(b) NDPS Act for possession of 4.218 grams of MDMA. The petitioner seeks bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, arguing that he has been in custody since 03.03.2025, is ready to comply with stringent conditions, and that the seized quantity constitutes an intermediate quantity, with no criminal antecedents alleged in the IO report. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but conceded the absence of antecedents. The court notes the quantity is not in the extreme category and that the rigour under Section 37 NDPS Act is not applicable. Citing established bail principles from Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 SCALE 870) and subsequent judgments such as Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024 KHC 6431) and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 KHC 6426), the court reinforces that bail is the rule and jail the exception, with Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala (2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260) also invoked. After evaluating the facts, the judge grants bail with stringent conditions: bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before the IO, no travel without court permission, and a prohibition on committing similar offences; bail can be cancelled for violation. The order emphasizes the established bail doctrine and its application to this case.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA) arising from OP(MV) No.269/2009 before the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, concerning the death of Sunseeb in a road accident on 11.08.2008 when a Maruti car (driven by the 1st respondent) collided with the deceased’s motorcycle. The 4th respondent insurer faced liability after the tribunal held the 1st respondent negligent and the insurer liable, awarding Rs.10,53,000 with 7.5% interest and costs. The appellants—wife, two minor children, and mother of the deceased—sought enhanced compensation, contending the deceased earned Rs.25,000 monthly abroad as a driver (supported by Exts. A9–A13), and that the tribunal undervalued future prospects and dependency. The tribunal accepted only Rs.4,000 monthly, prompting reliance on Manusha Sreekumar v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. to fix about Rs.12,000, considering 2008 wages and local conditions. On appeal, the High Court re-evaluated quantum: increasing loss of dependency to Rs.22,68,000, awarding Rs.15,000 for loss of estate, and revising loss of consortium to Rs.1,60,000 while applying Satinder Kaur to deduct the Rs.1,00,000 previously for love and affection. The court also corrected a misdirection in liability, and adjusted interest for the enhanced amount. The appeal was partly allowed, directing the insurer to deposit the enhanced aggregate within three months, with interest calculated excluding the delay period for the enhanced sum.
This appeal arises from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, dated 14 March 2011 in O.P (M.V) No.1049/2007, awarding a total compensation of ₹1,92,511 for injuries sustained by Rahhoof in a motor vehicle accident on 9 July 2007. The appellant, Rahhoof, a mason aged about 23, contends that the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at ₹3,500 on a notional basis, resulting in inadequate compensation for loss of earning, disability, and other heads. He relies on the Supreme Court's Ramachandrappa judgment (2011) to urge re-fixation of monthly income at ₹6,000 given the cost of living and the year of the accident, and asserts that the Tribunal also undervalued heads such as pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and extra nourishment; he argues for proper computation of loss of earnings with eight months for partial and full loss, plus adjustments for disability (7% assessed by Medical Board). The Tribunal's award also included nominal sums for transportation and bystander expenses and did not grant adequate damages for pain, suffering, or loss of amenities. The High Court, after detailed analysis, enhances several heads, re-fixes income at ₹6,000, and recalculates loss of earnings, resulting in an increased total compensation and awarding an additional amount of ₹1,17,700 with interest. The appeal is allowed; the insurer is directed to comply, with payment within two months.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3966 OF 2025 Shameela, the petitioner in Bail Appl. No. 3966 of 2025, challenges an accusation of offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) in Crime No. 1310/2024 of Anthikkad Police Station, Thrissur. The prosecution alleges that a firm named UK Regal Academy in Mangalore misrepresented employment opportunities abroad and collected Rs. 8,85,000 from the defacto complainant, allegedly breaching trust. The petitioner sought bail under Section 482 CrPC (BNS 2023 context) with the matter having previously been directed for interrogation and a report on the necessity of custodial interrogation, with an order that she would not be arrested until the next posting date. On 08.04.2025, the Court considered further submissions. The Public Prosecutor urged that if the petitioner cooperates, limited custodial interrogation may be possible; if arrest is necessary, bail with stringent conditions could be granted. The court reaffirmed the core precept that bail is the rule and detention the exception, citing Chidambaram and Siddharth cases, and noted the need to balance personal liberty with legitimate investigation. Ultimately, the Bail Application was allowed with directions: the petitioner shall appear before the IO within two weeks for interrogation; if arrest is proposed, she will be released on bail on bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties; she shall cooperate and not leave the jurisdiction without permission; shall not commit a similar offence; and the IO may pursue recoveries while on bail, with bail cancellable for violations.”
BAIL APPL. NO.5340 OF 2025 This is a Kerala High Court bail application (Bail Appl. No. 5340/2025) by Ashraf A., the second accused in Crime No.141/2025 of Kaipamangalam Police Station, registered under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The prosecution alleges that the accused purchased gold jewellery and misrepresented a transfer of Rs. 5,67,000, while the first accused allegedly executed the transfer; the petitioner contends that he was merely present in the car and not the principal actor. He has been in custody since 21.02.2025. The defense previously moved Bail Appl. No.3652/2025, which was not granted, and was withdrawn to refile. The court considered the submissions of counsel for both sides and noted the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, yet concluded that bail could be granted with stringent conditions, given the period of detention and the fundamental bail principle that liberty should be the norm. Relying on Supreme Court dicta such as Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, as well as Kerala decisions including Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India and State of Kerala (2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260), the court emphasizes that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.” The order grants bail with conditions: bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before the IO on Mondays at 10:00 AM until final report, no leaving India without permission, and prohibition against committing similar offences; any violation may lead to cancellation of bail. The bench is a Single Judge, Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan, who signs the order.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Cr.M.C. No. 5107 of 2019 challenging an order dated 02/07/2019 in CMP No. 438/2019 in CC No. 49/2012 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The petitioner, the first accused, faced trial for offenses under Sections 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 417 r/w 34 IPC for allegedly producing a forged license before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam, during ST No. 8888 of 2011 proceedings. Prosecution had examined six witnesses (PW1–PW6) and marked Exts. P1–P7; the final report was filed on 22.02.2012. After prosecution evidence, the defense rested; on 07/02/2019 the prosecution sought to reopen evidence via CMP 438/2019 under Section 311 CrPC to summon a witness and call for additional documents, notably to obtain address details and the license No. 9863/2006 from the RTO Meenambakkam. The trial court allowed this request, which is challenged here. The High Court considers arguments that the belated application seeks to fill lacunae and amount to retrial, while recognizing the wide discretionary power under Section 311 CrPC must be exercised judiciously (Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan) and that forged-document charges require that the maker be the offender (Shelia Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj). Ultimately, the Court holds the impugned order unsustainable, sets aside Annexure 4, and directs the Magistrate to expedite proceedings toward a just conclusion.
This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC, decided by a Single Judge. The petitioner, Edisonvinniageevargheese, faced trial in CP No.7 of 2022 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chottanikkara, for offences under IPC Sections 341, 324, 294(b), 506 and 308. The prosecution case arises from an incident on 19 October 2022 when the petitioner allegedly assaulted the first respondent with a helmet during a courier delivery. The petitioner contends that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and now desire to terminate the proceedings. Annexure-A5 contains the first respondent’s affidavit supporting the settlement and a statement by the de facto complainant indicating no ongoing grievances. The investigating officer was directed to verify the genuineness of the settlement and whether there are any antecedents, while the Public Prosecutor cautioned against quashing solely on the basis of a settlement. The Court, applying laid-down law on quashing under Section 482 (including State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and other precedents), held that for non‑compoundable, private offences with a settled dispute, the power can be exercised if there is no serious societal impact and the accused’s antecedents are acceptable. The court concluded that quashing would not undermine public interest and would promote ends of justice. The petition was allowed, FIR in Ambalamedu Case No.572/2022 and all further proceedings in CP No.7/2022 were quashed.
This writ appeal, brought by The Kerala Agricultural University (and its officers) challenging a Single Judge’s 31 March 2021 judgment in WP(C) No. 28306 of 2020, pertains to recruitment for the post of Assistant Professor (Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry) in the Faculty of Agriculture. Notification Ext. P1 dated 03.03.2016 notified four posts; in the open merit rank list of 33, the respondents were ranked 12, 14, and 17. Two earlier appointees obtained appointments; the challenge concerns Arya Lekshmi V (rank 17) under open merit, whose grievance is that two vacancies were left as NCA (non-availability of candidates)—one for a Differently Abled (Blind) candidate and another for SIUC Nadar. The Single Judge relied on Ext. P18 (2018) Clause 8.5 of a Central Government notification relating to reservations for persons with benchmark disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, to de-reserve that vacancy when no disabled candidate was available in the second recruitment year. The Court discusses the 1995 Act’s horizontal reservation, the 3% quota, the roster, and the distinction between vertical and horizontal reservations, citing classic cases (Indra Sawhney, Anil Kumar Gupta, Rajesh Kumar Daria) to underline that disabled-reservation is horizontal. Noting a related prior ruling (W.A. 536 of 2021) and a Supreme Court SLP (18600/2021) being disposed, the Division Bench dismisses the appeal, maintaining the Single Judge’s reasoning and directing the appointment of Arya Lekshmi V within one month, with contempt-proceeding parity.
This High Court of Kerala, in MACA No. 1595 of 2013, heard a motor-accident appeal filed by Usha V. Pillai and two other legal heirs of Vijayendran Pillai, challenging an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, dated 22 August 2012 in OPMV 1020/2009. The deceased was riding a motorcycle when a bus, driven by the 2nd respondent, allegedly negligent, struck the motorcycle, resulting in his death. The Tribunal found the accident due primarily to the bus driver, but held the deceased negligent to some extent (95:5) and awarded Rs. 4,00,072 as total compensation, with the 3rd respondent insurer liable for 95% (Rs. 3,81,000). The appellants argued the quantum was inadequate and that the Tribunal erred in attributing contributory negligence to the deceased. The High Court examined evidence, noted the driver's negligence and the fact that the accident occurred mid-road; it decided to set aside the Tribunal's finding of contributory negligence against the deceased. It recalculated compensation, adopting Sarla Verma's multiplier (age 51-55, multiplier 11) and Ramachandrappa's notional income, increasing monthly income to Rs.6,500 and applying a 1/3 deduction for personal living expenses, plus 10% future prospects under Pranay Sethi. It reworked the loss of dependency, loss of consortium, additive heads, and deducted no amount for loss of love and affection. Result: appeal allowed; enhanced compensation Rs.4,03,200; 7.5% interest; deposit within two months.
This is a bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) filed by Vineeth K. and Sidharth V.S., accused in Crime No.146/2025 of Adhur Police Station, Kasaragod. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant on 26 February 2025 in a dispute over a Holy Basil platform near a toddy shop; the first accused allegedly assaulted with a Nanjek, followed by others using sticks to strike the complainant’s nose and head. The petitioners and the prosecution present conflicting versions (Annexure-A1 FIR and Annexure-A2 FIR), making resolution of factual disputes at bail inappropriate. The Public Prosecutor contends that the allegations are serious, while counsel for the petitioners seeks bail, offering to comply with conditions. The Kerala High Court acknowledges the well-settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State (UP), Joginder Kumar, and Manish Sisodia, among others, to justify grant of bail under stringent conditions. The court ultimately allows the application, directing appearance before the investigating officer within two weeks, a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, continued cooperation, no travel without court permission, and non-commission of similar offences, with safeguarding observations about potential cancellation of bail for violations."
