The Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, heard W.P.(C) No.20218 of 2023 on 19 September 2023. The petitioner, K V Pramodh, challenged Ext.P13, an order dated 31 May 2023 by the Administrator of Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee, which extended for one year (2023-24) the Kuthaka rights for cloakrooms and a footwear counter in Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple to the Guruvayur Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society, without initiating a fresh tender process. The Ext.P13 extension followed Ext.R2(g) resolution No.35 (9 May 2023) and contemplated a 5% higher tender amount plus GST and a 5% security deposit. The petitioner argued that such an extension bypasses the mandatory tender process and violates the Supreme Court’s direction in Civil Appeal No.1906 of 2020 to invite fresh tenders. Respondents counter that the Managing Committee acted in the temple’s best interest, citing devotion comfort and the digitization of cloakrooms which reduced complaints and improved transparency. They rely on sections 10, 21 and 27 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act and Rule 17 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Rules, 1980, to justify discretionary extensions and budgetary considerations, and argue the 6th respondent’s audit role. The court anchors its reasoning in fiduciary duties of the Devaswom’s trustees, citing M.V. Ramasubbiar and Hindu Seva Kendram, and distinguishes Dr.P.K. Lazar’s position. The judgment disposes of the petition by setting aside Ext.P13, directing tender notification for 2023-24 within two months, while allowing limited continuation for the 4th respondent if applicable.
This is a Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.M.C. No. 1301 of 2023) before a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court. Petitioners are officials of Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Ltd. (Nos. 1–6), arraigned in FIR Crime No. 0919/2022 at Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam, on charges including criminal conspiracy and offences under the IPC (sections 406, 409, 420, 442 and 120-B read with 34). Respondents are the State of Kerala and the defacto complainant, Reby Thomas. The complainant purchased a flat in Jain Housing & Constructions Ltd.’s project, “Tuffnel Park,” financed by the Bank; allegations include illegal construction on paddy land without requisite environmental or statutory approvals, and alleged collusion between the Builder and bank officials. The petition seeks to quash Annexure 1 complaint, Annexure 2 FIR and all proceedings. The Court refrains from evaluating the merits of the FIR at this stage, citing settled prerequisites for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It examines whether the acts of the bank officials can be protected under Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act (protection of action taken in good faith). Relying on Neeharika Infra. v. State of Maharashtra and other precedents, the Court holds that the FIR discloses cognizable offences, but applies the SARFAESI protection only to acts done in good faith under the Act. Consequently, the Court partly allows the Crl.M.C.: quashes the 442/448 IPC claim, while permitting continued investigation into other offences. The order is dated 22 May 2023 and bears the signature of Judge K. Babu.
ITA Nos. 247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020 This batch judgment resolves a common set of Income Tax Appeals filed by Hillwood entities challenging block assessments arising from search (04/12/2013) and subsequent 133A survey (14/07/2014) at Riyaz’s premises, with data retrieved from three pen drives and corroborating records. The Tribunal initially rejected the appellants’ contentions and dismissed the appeals; the central issues concerned (i) the legality of conducting a survey at a residence under Section 133A and the applicability of the 2017 Explanation to 133A, (ii) the admissibility of additional grounds and evidence under Sections 65A/65B of the Evidence Act and Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, and (iii) the reliability and use of Hash Value Reports generated in 2014 for assessing suppressed turnover. The appellants urged the Tribunal’s power to admit additional grounds and the need for expert opinion on the Hash Value Report; they also challenged the legal basis for relying on data from the pen drives. The Kerala High Court, in a Division Bench, held that while ITAT has discretion to admit additional grounds, the exercise must be justified; ultimately, the court answered all substantial questions against the appellants, dismissed the appeals, and declined costs. The neutral citation is not provided in the document.
This is an original petition under Articles 226 & 227 challenging the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench’s final order in OA(EKM) No.1432/2020 (dated 26.10.2021) which dismissed the applicants’ prayers for appointment as Clerk-Typist in Kasaragod district. The petitioners were placed at ranks 29 and 30 in Annexure-A2 (dated 17.02.2011) for Clerk-Typist after PSC selection; later, in 2011, LD Typist qualifications were introduced (Annexure-A6) and a clarificatory GO (Annexure-A8) stipulated applicability from 01.07.2011 onward. The Government’s changes, not clarified in Annexure-A6 for pre-2011 selections, led to the PSC advising LD Typist candidates against the Clerk-Typist vacancies, depriving the petitioners of their turn before the ranked list expired. The Tribunal held the State’s rejection under Annexure-A17 to be beyond its judicial review. The High Court held that Rule 39 of Part II KS & SSR could remedy genuine grievances, but the State’s discretion under Rule 39 must be exercised fairly. The Court quashed Annexure-A17, remitting the matter to the State Government for fresh consideration under Rule 39, with hearing, and directed a decision within two months, keeping in view sympathy and equity for the petitioners.
WP(C) Nos. 6688 of 2019; 6726 of 2019 These connected writ petitions challenge the Land Acquisition proceedings for the second phase development of Infopark, Kakkanad. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation under Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with the amount deposited before the Reference Court under Section 30. The petitioners/proprietors proved their title and received compensation in 2013 from the Reference Court. They did not file a Section 18 reference for enhancement. Instead, they sought re-determination under Section 28A(1) before the first respondent, relying on Ext.P2, a common judgment in LAR Nos. 81/2010 and 111/2010. The first respondent rejected Ext.P3 on the ground that the petitioners failed to produce the original judgment relied upon, and relied on a separate writ petition, WP(C) 2769/2016, to justify the rejection. The petitioners pressed the Sahid decision, contending that a delay in producing a certified copy should not defeat consideration, provided other conditions are met and the application is within three months of receipt of the judgment. The court relied on Sahid ( Supra ) and held that Ext.P4 cannot stand; the petitions are allowed, Ext.P4 is quashed, and the 28A(3) references must be referred to the Reference Court for adjudication, with orders to be issued within a month.
This Kerala High Court judgment concerns OP(KAT) No.344 of 2021 filed by Deepu K.C. challenging the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s (Ernakulam Bench) Ext.P-3 order dated 23 November 2021 in OA(Ekm) No.1591/2021. The petitioner, a government employee in the Co-operative Department, had availed Leave Without Allowance (LWA) to take up foreign employment under Appendix XIIA of Part I KSR from 2010 to 2021, with periods extended by subsequent orders. In 2020, the government issued G.O. No.152/2020/Fin (Anx A-4) reducing the maximum LWA period to five years and stating that failures to rejoin after five years would be deemed resignation; it also provided that pending extensions as on 05.11.2020 could consider foreign service contracts. A circular (Anx A-5) on 30.12.2020 clarified this policy, with exceptions for pending cases and foreign contracts. The petitioner’s extension request for a further four years (Anx A-6) was rejected by the 3rd respondent (Anx A-11). The Tribunal dismissed OA1591/2021, holding the grounds of rejection legally sustainable. The High Court, however, found Anx A-11’s grounds to be violative of nondiscrimination and hostile to the petitioner, quashed Ext.P-3 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. It directed that the competent authority consider Anx A-6 in light of the foreign contract (Anx A-3, 07.08.2020) and the new policy, ensuring reasonable opportunity of hearing, and decide within three months, without treating the leave as deemed resignation pending decision.
PNB Vesper Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (the 1st petitioner) and its former director (the 2nd petitioner) challenge the Kerala State Co-operative Bank’s retention of title deeds mortgaged to secure a loan to the 1st petitioner. The loan originated via the Thrissur District Co-operative Bank and the mortgage related to assets of the 2nd petitioner; on 30.03.2023 the petitioner paid Rs. 2,46,95,424 to settle the liability in full. Ext P20 indicated payment by 31.03.2023. The petition contends that after complete settlement, the bank cannot retain the documents; the bank asserts a general lien under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, over documents deposited to secure the 1st petitioner’s loan, especially since Cybele Herbal Laboratories (P) Ltd. (where the 2nd petitioner and her husband are directors) owes substantial amounts to the bank, and both banks have merged with the 2nd respondent. The petitioner argues the 2nd petitioner’s property is distinct from Cybele and not mortgaged for Cybele’s loans; corporate veil arguments are raised to prevent treating the two entities as one. The court ultimately addresses maintainability of the writ against a cooperative society and, interpreting prior Kerala authorities and public-duty principles, allows the petition in terms of relief (vi) and directs the bank to return the title deeds while clarifying that other lawful actions may proceed. The judgment cites Lonankutty Antony, Vinu Madhavan, Shalini K.S., Vijaya Bank, State Bank of India, and Syndicate Bank among others.
The appellant Ravinathan, formerly the Chief Ministerial Officer (CMO) at the Munsiff's Court, Nedumangad, faced a conviction under sections 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 409 IPC for allegedly misappropriating ₹2,20,000 from the proceeds in O.S.335/2005. The trial court found that he received the amount and other valuables on 27 June 2005 and kept them in the court safe, with the keys in his custody, after which, despite his transfer from Nedumangad on 8 June 2006, he did not hand over the entire charge of valuables promptly. The remaining valuables and the ₹2,20,000 were ultimately handed over on 27 July 2006, as evidenced by PW1 (the CMO) and PW7 (the Munsiff). The prosecution argued that entrustment occurred on 27 June 2005 and the accused misappropriated the money when he held it in custody, a position supported by the witnesses and the documentary Exts. P7/P8 and Ext. P4(g) submissions. The defence contended that there was no satisfactory evidence of entrustment and that the sanction for prosecution was not properly proved; they invoked several older decisions to argue that mere detention is insufficient. The High Court, after reappraisal, rejected these contentions, held that entrustment and misappropriation were proven beyond reasonable doubt, and that sanction was valid. The appeal, including the added appellant upon the original’s death, was dismissed; the sentence remained reasonable, with fines to be paid.
CRL.M.C. No. 1757 of 2023 Georgekutty Xavier, the petitioner/accused in C.C. No. 76 of 2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom, seeks relief under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings for alleged offence under Section 64A of the Abkari Act. The High Court at Ernakulam considers a criminal misc. case brought on admission, where the Excise Range Office Kaduthuruthy conducted a search at the petitioner’s residence on 24.02.2020, allegedly locating 2.450 litres of illicit arrack, leading to Crime No. 22/2020 and a final report invoking Section 64A of the Abkari Act. The petitioner alleged false implication, alleging prior enmity, and submitted a complaint to the Excise Commissioner. An investigation by the Vigilance Officer, Excise, Thiruvananthapuram (26.06.2020) concluded the petitioner was falsely implicated and recommended action against the detecting officers, including initiating a case under Section 195 IPC. The Vigilance report’s conclusions were not followed; the final report was filed despite lack of corroborating evidence against the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner contends that continuing proceedings is abuse of process and that the Vigilance report undermines the continued prosecution. The Public Prosecutor concedes the possibility of quashing and notes the need to ascertain statuses of other officers. The Court relies on Bhajan Lal’s caution on extraordinary powers, finds no prima facie case against the petitioner, and grants relief by quashing the proceedings, reaffirming the prerogative to prevent abuse of process.
R.S.A. No. 259 of 2021 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam arises from a suit for a mandatory injunction in O.S. No. 334 of 2016 of the Munsiff, Manjeri, filed by P.P. Muhammed Yasin against K.V.K. Sayyid Hashim. The plaintiff sought a decree directing the defendant to submit a joint application for transfer of school management, after obtaining permission from the Director of Public Instructions (DPI), and to execute the sale deed. The defendant admitted receipt of substantial payments under Ext. A1, a 2013 agreement for sale of land and three aided schools for Rs. 1.9 crore, but contended that the balance and transfer could occur only after statutory permission, making a mandatory injunction premature and not maintainable, and that the DPI is a necessary party. The trial court granted the injunction; the first appellate court affirmed. The High Court examined whether a running school transfer constitutes a change of management with ownership under Rule 5A of the Kerala Education Rules and Section 6 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, and whether a decree for mandatory injunction is appropriate where permission is required. Relying on precedents such as Roopa A.K, Koyyode Madrassa, Virgo, Atma Ram and Vithalbhai, the court held that prior DPI permission is essential for change of management involving ownership. The appeal is disposed by directing the defendant to deposit the balance amount and enabling a joint application for change of management, thereby modifying the injunction relief to reflect statutory requirements.
33774/2018 (WP(C)) and connected cases The batch of writ petitions challenges the coercive demand of motor tax under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1936, and the compulsory contributions to the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund (KMTWWF) under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985. Petitioners, operating stage carriages under permits issued by the Regional Transport Officer, contend that their undertakings fall under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 or the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and hence should be exempt from KMTWWF contributions. The core issue is whether a motor transport undertaking covered by EPF/Gratuity laws can be exempted from Welfare Fund contributions, and whether the Regional Transport Officers can demand proof of remittance before accepting tax payments. The court references the proviso to Section 4 of the KMTWWF Act and cites the 2008 Kerala case George Antony v. State of Kerala, which held that exemption matters are to be resolved in the adjudication process by the Welfare Fund Board and not by the RTO, directing enquiry into EPF coverage with a certificate-based approach. The judgment lays down a framework: if EPF coverage exists, RPFO can certify, and the District Executive Officer should issue a clearance certificate within a set time, enabling the RTO to accept tax dues; if not exempt, adjudication proceeds with an order on contributions.
PRANAM Enterprises Vastushree Complex, Pune, filed WP(C) No.6405 of 2020 in the Kerala High Court challenging an e-auction conducted for scrapped ammonia/urea plants by The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited (FCTL) with MSTC. The petitioner, having deposited Rs 2 crore as Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), participated in the auction on 27 October 2016. The bid escalated due to a mistaken entry to Rs 230.07 crore, whereas the intended bid was around Rs 23.01 crore. Upon realizing the error, the petitioner emailed and wrote to senior officials seeking cancellation and refund of the EMD. Instead, Ext.P15 stated the bid was accepted subject to approval of the first respondent, and later Ext.P23 forfeited the pre-bid EMD on 07 February 2017 for non-payment of 10% of the bid value within seven days of sale confirmation. The petitioner argued this forfeiture caused unjust enrichment and highlighted that the same lot later fetched only about Rs 22.42 crore. Respondents contended that the tender terms (Ext.P1) allow forfeiture if the high bidder fails to meet conditions (Clause 5.0(C), Clause 12.0, and 9.2), and invoked arbitration (Clause 62.0). The court considered maintainability given arbitration, delay (over three years since forfeiture), and the validity of the EMD forfeiture, ultimately dismissing the petition. The decision rests on the tender terms and public-law principles governing writ petitions in contractual matters.
Sabitha Ajith Kumar, landlord/petitioner, challenges RCA No.19 of 2017 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, through a revision under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, contending that the depositions and documents establishing title and the landlord-tenant relationship were not properly considered. The building originally belonged to Sabitha’s father, who leased to the respondent for Rs. 300 per month in 1987 under an unregistered agreement. Subsequent settlements by the family shifted ownership; the tenant contested the landlord’s title and the tenancy, claiming the property was entrusted to him by Sabitha’s father with an understanding that he or his successors would not vacate. The Rent Control Court held the denial of title by the landlord not bona fide, supported by Exts. A1–A6 (including Ext. A6, the 01.01.1987 rental agreement). On appeal, RCA No.19/2017 remanded for fresh evidence, allowing Ext. A6 to be marked. The Rent Control Court refused to mark Ext. A6 for lack of registration. The revision petitions this order and argues that marking a document is an administrative act, with the document’s contents needing admissible proof. The High Court ultimately allows the revision, directing the Rent Control Court to mark Ext. A6, determine admissibility, and decide the landlord-tenant relationship, with a view to disposing of the RCP 27/2014 within a month. The decision reiterates that mere marking does not prove contents; admissibility and proof must follow due process.
This Kerala High Court criminal appeal arises from an appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC challenging the acquittal of the first respondent for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court had convicted the accused for issuing Ext P1 cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt of Rs 2,50,000, dishonoured by Ext P2 for insufficiency of funds, and awarded two months’ imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 2.5 lakh, with default imprisonment. The Appellate Court reversed, acquitting the accused on the ground that the complainant’s evidence did not establish the execution of Ext P1 and the debt; the trial Court’s findings were set aside. The High Court, while emphasising the jurisprudence on appeals against acquittals, held that interference is permissible only where the conclusions of the Appellate Court are perverse or not plausible, citing Rupesh Manger (Thapa) v. State of Sikkim and other precedents. The court reaffirmed the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act, holding that the onus lies on the accused to rebut the presumption; the accused failed to discharge this reverse onus. Consequently, the judgment of the Appellate Court is set aside, and the Trial Court’s conviction is restored, with a sentence of one day’s imprisonment and a compensation of Rs 3,00,000 to be paid within sixty days, with further stipulations in case of non-compliance.
This Criminal Misc Case (CRL.MC No.1220 of 2013) challenges the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ambalapuzha, in CC 878/2008, which charged the petitioners with offences under Section 420 read with 34 IPC. The petitioners, K. Raveendran and C.N. Prabhakaran, were the Secretary and President of SNDP Branch No.245 at Vandanam-Neerkunnam. The 2nd Respondent alleged that the petitioners collected deposits from her amounting to Rs 4 lakh with assurances of return at 18% interest, but failed to repay, prompting a private complaint and subsequent police cases. The State and the 2nd respondent argued the matter also involved civil disputes, already pursued through a District Legal Service Authority (DLSA) process aimed at settling the creditors of SNDP by sale of property, under a committee formed to supervise such settlements, and that thus the matter should be treated as civil rather than criminal. The court, after reviewing Annexure B (final report) and the underlying issues, relied on Supreme Court precedent to outline the ingredients of Section 420 IPC: a false representation, prior knowledge of its falsity, dishonest intent, and inducement to deliver property. It concluded that even accepting all allegations, the essential elements of cheating were not shown. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and all further proceedings in CC 878/2008 are quashed.
This criminal miscellaneous case (CRL.MC 1921 of 2016) challenges Annexure 26 proceedings issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Alappuzha, in MC No.24/2016. The High Court notes the stay on the proceedings that had continued from 2016 until it was lifted, and scrutinizes whether Annexure 26 complied with the procedural prerequisites of Sections 107 and 111 CrPC. The court references prior Kerala High Court decisions, namely Girish P. and others v. State of Kerala (2009 (4) KHC 929) and Bejoy K.V. v State of Kerala and Another (2015 (5) KHC 507), to emphasize that an order under Section 111 CrPC must reveal the substance of the information received, the bond terms, term, and securities, in order to enable the affected person to defend the allegations. It also notes that merely the fact of involvement in a crime (Crime No. 207/2009) is insufficient without an imminent breach of peace. The court criticized Annexure I and Annexure 26 for not disclosing the substance of information or the basis of satisfaction. Past conduct alone cannot justify initiation absent concrete information. The Court grants the petition, holding Annexure 26 proceedings unsustainable and quashing all further proceedings linked to Annexure 26.
This is a criminal appeal under CrL.A. No. 560 of 2011 challenging the acquittal of the second respondent for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1888. The complainant joined a chitty for Rs. 1,00,000 in 1999 and paid the amount; the accused, allegedly as a bilateral settlement, issued Ext. P1 cheque for Rs. 1,00,000 dated 06.08.2007 to discharge the obligation. The cheque was dishonoured (Ext. P2) and a statutory notice (Ext. P3) was issued; payment was not made. The Trial Court convicted the accused under s.138 NI Act and sentenced imprisonment till rising of the court with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, to be paid as compensation. The Appellate Court reversed, acquitting the accused, holding that the debt was time-barred and the cheque did not represent a legally enforceable debt. The Kerala High Court (Single Judge, Justice C.S. Dias) re-examines the matter, applying a broad view of reverse onus and presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act, and considers Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, along with authorities such as Ramakrishnan v. Parthasaradhy and Vathsan v. Japahari. The Court restores the conviction, overrules the acquittal, and imposes a sentence of one day imprisonment plus Rs. 1,00,000 fine with compensation to the complainant.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4950 OF 2025 The petitioner, Ansu K. H., an accused in Crime No. 211/2025 of Perumpetty Police Station, moves Bail Application No. 4950/2025 under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The FIR/charge sheet allegations pertain to offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, arising from a dispute over the sale of a JCB where the accused allegedly cheated and caused financial loss to the defacto complainant and a friend, Arun, by not paying the balance after taking possession and promising EMI payments. The court notes that some amount was paid and the balance remains unpaid; whether a criminal offence is made out is a matter for investigation. The defense urged that bail be granted in light of established bail jurisprudence, invoking Supreme Court precedents such as Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 SCALE 870), Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021 KHC 353), and Manish Sisodia v. CBI (2023 KHC 6961), to emphasize that bail is the rule and detention is the exception, especially where fair trial and personal liberty are at stake. The state maintained that arrest should be contemplated if necessary to protect the investigation and ensure cooperation. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the petitioner may be released on bail with stringent conditions, citing constitutional safeguards and the need to balance liberty with effective investigation. The order ultimately grants bail with conditions and outlines monitoring mechanisms, with caveats on possible cancellation if conditions are breached.
This Regular First Appeal (RFA No. 402 of 2005) challenges a preliminary partition decree in a suit for partition involving seven items of property, including two schools (Upper Primary and High School). Kunhiraman Master, the original owner, died on 27.12.1980. The plaintiff (respondent) seeks partition and rights in respect of schools; the defendants (appellants 1, 3 and 4) claim the schools and their management were bequeathed to defendant 1 under Ext. B1, a Will dated 07.10.1980. The trial court held Ext. B1 not proved under the Indian Evidence Act, citing suspicious circumstances surrounding execution; it passed a preliminary decree for partition, but did not grant the management rights. The appellants argued Ext. B1 was proven under Section 69 of the Evidence Act (identification of the testator and at least one attesting witness) and that the witnesses’ deaths could be accepted through death certificates. The respondents contended the Will was ambiguous, suspicious, and executed under undue influence; they also objected to extending management rights beyond the bequest. On appeal, the Kerala High Court found Ext. B1 not proved due to lack of identification of the testator’s signature and the failing of Section 69 requirements, even though attesting witnesses were deceased and death certificates were admitted. The court, however, upheld Exts. B9 and B10 (Wills dated 15.06.1999) as valid, disposing of the appeal with directions to record final decree accordingly. The decision emphasizes that registration alone does not prove genuineness and that the disputed transfer of management rights was not established by Ext. B1.
MACA No. 279/2020; MACA No. 1840/2019 These two motor-accident claims appeals were disposed of by a single judgment of the Kerala High Court, presided over by a single Judge, DevAN Ramachandran, on 8 March 2023. The appeals arise from OP(MV) No. 852/2016 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, regarding a February 24, 2016 road accident in which the claimant sustained head injuries after being knocked down by an open door of a bus driven rashly and negligently. In MACA 1840/2019 (Unni Pathumma K.), the claimant argues the Tribunal’s award is inadequate and contends that the notional income adopted (Rs. 8,000/month) should be corrected using the Ramachandrappa principle, which fixes a minimum notional income (Rs. 10,500 in 2016) and seeks higher sums under Pain and Suffering and Loss of Amenities. The Tribunal held owner and conductor liable and insurer liable to reimburse if the vehicle lacked a permit. In MACA 279/2020 (conductor), it is argued the permit was valid, but the certificate was not properly proved before the Tribunal, and the insurer cautions against accepting the certificate without proper evidence, suggesting remand. The Court remanded MACA 279/2020 for verification of permit evidence and, in MACA 1840/2019, enhanced compensation (Loss of Earnings to Rs. 21,000; Pain and Suffering to Rs. 50,000) with other heads unchanged, directed deposit, and allowed costs.
