Dr. Shibu Puthenparambil, a former Associate Professor and Vice Principal at the self-financing School of Medical Education (SME), was transferred to the Centre for Professional and Advanced Studies (CPAS) under an agreement with Mahatma Gandhi University (MGU). He moved under the premise that CPAS would ensure his continuation as a faculty member under that agreement. Ext.P12, a termination order, was issued by CPAS, terminating his services, prompting the petition to set it aside. The respondents argued that the course was financially unviable and that the batch would be the last; they relied on a Division Bench judgment (and its SLP that was approved by the Supreme Court) delineating retrenchment norms for teachers in self-financing affiliated colleges, including payment of wages and retrenchment compensation under Statute 2, Chapter III of the MG University Statutes, 1997. The petitioner’s counsel contended that the termination is unlawful in conflict with the agreement and his lawful appointment. The court held that petitioners in similar situations are permanent teachers, and that the Division Bench declarations, approved by the Supreme Court, prescribe retrenchment or payment in lieu with notice and other components, including gratuity, with liability on the University. While Ext.P12 cannot be set aside on financial unviability, the Court directed expeditious action by the University to implement the approved directions, including payment of any unpaid wages, within four months.
This is a Kerala High Court revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, challenging eviction orders in a rent-control dispute. The revision petitioner, Babulal, filed R.C.R. No. 365 of 2019 against a judgment dated 04 July 2019 in RCA 17/2018, which in turn arose from RCP 5/2014 seeking eviction of the tenants from a scheduled building situated in Angamaly. The petitioner contends the property, obtained by settlement, is required for constructing a three‑story shopping complex behind the existing building. The petition schedule property is 2.120 cents within a larger 8.120 cents; Ext.A2 shows an overall plan, Ext.A14 is an agreement to demolish the existing structure, and Ext.A18 grants power of attorney enabling a relative to act for the petitioner. The Rent Control Court held the eviction to be bona fide under Section 11(3). The Rent Control Appellate Authority interfered, setting aside the RCC’s order on grounds including absence of petitioner’s name in Ext.A2 and unclear role in Ext.A14. The High Court, invoking its revisional jurisdiction under Section 20, held that the RCC’s findings were correct and that the RCAA erred in interference. The revision petition is allowed; the impugned judgment is set aside; eviction order is upheld and tenants are directed to vacate within one month.
The petitioner, Vinukumar S., employed as a Shift Operator with the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB), challenges disciplinary proceedings arising from an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) inquiry into alleged sexual harassment of women employees. The ICC’s report (Exhibit P1, dated 27.4.2021) found the allegations to be true, at least in part, and recommended: (i) transfer of the petitioner from the 110 KV Matttannur station and (ii) a strict warning to him not to repeat such conduct. Subsequently, the employer issued memo of charges (Exhibit P2), a show-cause notice (Exhibit P4), and ultimately imposed a penalty: barring one increment with cumulative effect (Exhibit P6). The petitioner challenged this penalty as beyond the ICC’s recommendations and contended that, under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 (Sections 11-13), the ICC’s inquiry should be treated as a full inquiry with credence given to its findings, while the final action should align with service rules. The respondents defended the action, asserting that the ICC’s findings amount to sexual harassment and compelled disciplinary action under the Act and service rules. The High Court ultimately held that Ext. P6 must be set aside, and the penalty should be a strict censure/warning, based on the ICC report, with Ext. P1’s evidentiary value affirmed. The petition was disposed of accordingly, guiding reversion to a proportionate disciplinary step.”
The Kerala High Court in OP (FC) No.504 of 2022 deals with interim custody and guardianship of Mikavu, born 01.01.2021, in a dispute between Mithula V C (mother and petitioner) and Ajay Mohan (father and respondent). The Family Court, Thrissur, had directed visiting rights for the father and ordered exchange of the child within court premises, with monetary travel support for the mother. The father sought guardianship, and the mother challenged aspects of the interim orders, culminating in the High Court staying the impugned Family Court order dated 11-08-2022 and permitting the father to visit on the first and fourth Fridays, while directing the parties to proceed with the main O.P. No.1231/2021 in the Family Court. The Court underscored the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration, citing Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan (2020) and Vasudha Sethi v. Kiran V. Bhaskar (AIR 2022 SC 476) to emphasize that custody decisions must be guided by the child’s best interests and, where appropriate, by visitation rights to maintain contact with both parents. The High Court held that issues raised by the parties would be adjudicated in the main proceedings, while extending interim arrangements for two months and directing the Family Court to re-evaluate thereafter in light of the child’s welfare and health.
This High Court of Kerala matter under O.P.(FC) No. 488 of 2022 concerns guardianship and custody of a minor, Ishaani Sarah Alwin, aged two. The petitioner mother seeks guardianship under G.O.P No. 2336/2022 filed in the Family Court, Ernakulam, and interim custody through Ext. P5. The Child Welfare Committee, Ernakulam, was suo motu impleaded as added respondent R4. The court previously directed counselling by Dr. Anoop Vincent and arranged a custody arrangement with the mother having custody on weekdays and the father from Friday evening to Sunday, with custody to be handed over via the Family Court, Ettumanoor, and with a recallable order post-counselling. Despite counselling, the court observed no fruitful result and directed further counselling at the Family Counselling Centre within the court premises; the petitioner declined that option. The Court emphasized the child’s welfare, citing Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan and the right of a tender-age child to close contact with both parents, warning against letting egos or disputes override the child’s best interests. It ultimately disposed the petition by directing Ext. P5 to be listed for consideration on 29.09.2022 and to pass an interim custody order by 30.09.2022, while leaving the guardianship issue to the Family Court’s disposition.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P1, a notification of the University of Kerala that imposes an upper age limit of 50 years for direct recruitment to the post of Professor in various departments. The petitioners, Sebastian Joseph and Dr. Pratheep P.S., contend that the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education 2018 do not prescribe any upper age limit, implying eligibility up to retirement age for otherwise qualified candidates. They argue that the Kerala University First Statutes of 1977 cannot override the UGC Regulations, and rely on Supreme Court guidance including Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S. & Ors. to support the supremacy of UGC Regulations in this field. The University counters that the First Statutes supplement UGC Regulations when the latter are silent, and that Statute 5A, Chapter III of the First Statutes fixes a 50-year cap for direct recruitment of Professors. The Government’s Ext.P8 order (17-08-2019) relaxing age norms for Associate Professors is cited as acknowledging the untenability of a rigid cap. The Judge finds no lacuna in the Regulations and ultimately allows the petition, directing the University to consider the petitioners’ applications and interview them de hors the 50-year limit, subject to eligibility.
The petitioner, Silpa Mol, challenges Ext.P7 detention order passed under Section 3(1) KAAPA against her husband, the detenu, issued by the District Magistrate and confirmed by the Government under Section 10(4) KAAPA. The detention, dated 2 September 2022, was executed while the detenu was in judicial custody, and the Government’s approval came on 24 September 2022. The grounds of challenge include (i) non-compliance with Section 3(3) KAAPA, (ii) non-application of mind by the detaining authority, and (iii) non-satisfaction of the criteria under Section 13(2)(i) KAAPA. The respondents contend the 12-day period in Section 3(3) should exclude holidays, that execution happened on 7 September 2022 and approval on 24 September is within the window when holidays are excluded, and that the order is otherwise valid given the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction that detaining is necessary to prevent anti-social activity. The Court reviews the statutory requirements and relevant precedents, including the twin-satisfaction doctrine (objective and subjective), the role of the Explanation to Section 2(o), and the definitions of ‘known goonda’ and ‘known rowdy’. It also considers whether the detenu’s existing judicial custody neutralizes the necessity of preventive detention. Ultimately, the Court holds that the order complies with KAAPA, upholds the detention, and dismisses the writ petition.
The petitioner, Aloysius C Antony, is the registered owner of a JCB registered KL-33-05. On 26 April 2011, while the JCB was being used for earthwork on land belonging to Tomy Zacharia in Vazhapally Village, Changanassery Taluk, the Sub Inspector of Police seized the vehicle on the allegation of illegal reclamation of paddy land. Based on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Sub Inspector, the District Collector, Kottayam, issued Ext. P1, an order confiscating the JCB under Section 20 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioner challenged Ext. P1; during the pendency of the appeal, the District Judge stayed Ext. P1 and directed release on deposit of Rs. 3,00,000, but Ext. P4 later dismissed the appeal and directed surrender of the vehicle within a week. The petitioner contends that the property from which the JCB was seized is not paddy land; it contends the land was not notified in the data bank, with final data bank published in 2016 not including the land of 7th respondent. Reliance is placed on Kaipadath Property Development Co. (Pvt) Ltd v. State of Kerala and Firose v. RDO, arguing that prosecution under the Act can be initiated only for notified paddy/wetland. The High Court agrees, holding that seizure and confiscation cannot be sustained where the land is not notified, since Section 5(4) requires notification for prosecution, and the data bank did not include the land. The petition is allowed; Ext. P1 and Ext. P4 are set aside, and the JCB must be released forthwith to the petitioner.
CRL.A Nos.685/2018, 722/2018, 740/2018, 775/2018, and 790/2018 Five linked Criminal Appeals arise from the 2007 incident at Mooriyad, Kannur, in which BJP workers were attacked by CPI(M) loyalists during a political rivalry. The Sessions Court, Thalassery, convicted accused Nos. 2–11 under IPC sections 143, 341, 307, 302 r/w 149 and additional sections 147 r/w 149 and 148 r/w 149. The High Court, in a Division Bench, re-evaluates the evidence, particularly the ocular testimony of the injured PW2 and occurrence witnesses PW3 and PW4, the medical autopsy (Ext. P11) and wound certificate (Ext. P12), and the weapon recoveries (Exts. P2–P8) with FSL support (Ext. P24). It upholds the prosecution’s case, rejecting defence challenges to credibility and arguing that minor contradictions do not undermine the core facts. The court notes investigation lapses but emphasizes that the overwhelming evidence, including direct eyewitness testimony, corroboration by medical and forensic evidence, and consistent weapon linkage, justifies the conviction. It relies on principles that injured witnesses deserve careful consideration (Brahm Swaroop v. State of U.P.), that investigation cannot be sole basis for acquittal (Karnataka v. Yarappa Reddi), and that discovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is admissible when later confirmed. The appeals are dismissed; the conviction and sentence awarded by the Sessions Court are affirmed.
This Kerala High Court revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 challenges a Rent Control Court eviction order. The landlord, Karimpanakkal Hamza, sought eviction of tenant Kollampparambil Shaiju Kurian from a ground-floor petition schedule room let for Rs. 3,000 per month, with a security deposit of Rs. 50,000. The rental agreement expired on 23/06/2013, but the tenant did not vacate and defaulted rent from July 2013 onwards. The landlord, who has been abroad for about thirty years, asserts a bona fide need to start a mobile sales and service centre in the premises; this underpins the eviction petition under Section 11(3). The RCC held the need bona fide and granted eviction; the RCAA reversed, finding the need not bona fide and lamenting lack of discussion by the RCC on bonafides. The revision petitioner contends that the revisional court can correct illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order, citing the Hindustan Petroleum principle that perverse or misread findings can be corrected in revision. The High Court, in a Division Bench, re-examines the evidence, notes contradictions about alternatives (other vacant rooms) and the landlord’s bona fides, and ultimately sets aside the RCAA’s finding, while confirming the RCC eviction order. The revision is allowed, and the tenant is directed to vacate within one month.
This writ petition challenges the revision of pay and allowances for the High Court of Kerala's staff, specifically the post of Superintendent (Vehicles). The petitioner, K.C. Sreenivas, initially absorbed into the High Court service with a fixed pay scale, later saw his pay revised under schemes and Government Orders that followed the 10th Pay Revision Commission’s recommendations. The Commission had recommended upgrading the Superintendent (Vehicles) to a scale comparable to an Assistant Engineer (PWD), with a revised scale around Rs 45,800-87,000, taking into account long service, workload and responsibility. However, the Government issued a lower revised scale (Rs 35,700-75,600) via G.O.180/2016, and various related orders (Exts. P9, P11, P13) created a complex, retrospective/notional framework for monetary benefits. The Registrar General and other authorities sought rectification, but the government later issued inconsistent orders, leading to further litigation. The petitioner contends that the Chief Justice’s recommendations in Article 229 matters are to be accepted and require proper exchange of thoughts between the judiciary and the Government before any formal action. The court condemns the government’s casual handling of recommendations, cites Supreme Court precedent (Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India) on the need for proper consultation, and ultimately allows the petition, quashes Ext. P11, directs revision as per Ext. P9 to be effective from 01.07.2014, and orders expeditious monetary disbursement.
WA Nos.676/2020, 52/2020, 395/2020, 800/2020, 711/2020, 721/2020, 712/2020, 713/2020, 754/2020, 735/2020, 743/2020, 790/2020, 1382/2020, 765/2020, 801/2020, 773/2020, 774/2020, 805/2020, 1391/2020, 1400/2020, 821/2020, 1363/2020, 1377/2020, 823/2020, 1491/2020, 1416/2020, 1381/2020, 802/2020, 803/2020, 859/2020, 873/2020, 871/2020, 883/2020, 3705/2018, 961/2020, 1036/2020, 1112/2020, 1101/2020, 1338/2020, 87/2022, 1206/2020, 11649/2017, 12570/2017, 12619/2017, 12959/2017, 17753/2017, 19310/2017, 20196/2017, 20283/2017, 1718/2020, 21946/2017, 24228/2017, 1705/2020 This is a consolidated writ appeal judgment of the Kerala High Court (Division Bench) delivered on 30 November 2022, dealing with the retrospective operation of Section 42(3) of the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act, 2003 as amended by the Kerala Finance Act, 2016 (Act 18/2016). The State- appellants challenged the High Court’s decision in WP(C) 13673/2017 and other connected writ petitions, which had upheld the retrospective amendment and permitted reopening of time-barred assessments under Section 42(3). The core issue is whether the Finance Act introduced a retrospective power to reopen assessments despite existing limitations under Section 25 of the KVAT Act, and whether the legislative fiction in Section 42(3) (treating certain non-compliances as ‘pending’) is compatible with the statutory framework, including timelines and the self-assessment regime under the KVAT Act and the post-GST regime. The court acknowledges that legislation may have retrospective effect but must be reasonable and harmoniously read with the existing provisions (Sections 20–25, Rules 58(20), and related principles). It cites authorities such as Ghanshyam Das, Ramdas Laxmidas, Taj Mahal Hotel, Vatika Township, and Maruti Suzuki to frame interpretive principles, but ultimately dismisses the appeals, upholding the impugned judgment and disposing of all connected petitions. The decision emphasizes certainty and balance between revenue protection and finality of assessments in the evolving tax regime.
This writ appeal (WA 1355 of 2022) before the Kerala High Court challenges the interim order vacating the earlier stay on sale under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The appellants (ten borrowers) defaulted on loans to Canara Bank Ltd. and Punjab National Bank, triggering notice under Section 13(2) and sale of their secured asset, Ext. P11. After deposits totaling roughly Rs. 7.9 crore as directed, the learned Single Judge vacated the interim order dated 29 July 2022, relying on Section 13(8) as amended and citing the Supreme Court decisions in Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Emil and Eric Hospitality Services (2021) and Bank of Baroda v. Karwa Trading Company (2022). The appellants contend the vacatur was improper, point to alleged collusion with the third respondent, and argue that the 25% deposit rule applies only upon sale confirmation; they seek quashing Ext. P11 sale notice and restraint on sale proceedings. The respondents submit that redemption is not possible post-initiation under Section 13(8). The Division Bench holds that it will not interfere with the Single Judge’s vacatur of the interim order, but vacates the remark allowing challenge to the sale and directs that the stay on 06.09.2022 would stand vacated; the writ appeal is disposed of accordingly.
This Kerala High Court judgment under Article 227 concerns OP (RC) No. 107 of 2022, a tenant’s challenge to Ext.P4 (01-04-2022) directing deposit of admitted rent arrears in a Rent Control Petition (RCP 2/2020) filed by the landlord under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Control Court had ordered the tenant to deposit admitted arrears by 31 May 2022 after rejecting the tenant’s stand that the landlord could adjust a prior security deposit and other transactions toward rent. The tenant argued that there were no arrears because the landlord had purchased goods on credit to be adjusted against rent (Rs 1,44,500/month) and because Rs 25,00,000 had already been paid as security, which should be set off against arrears; they also questioned the maintainability of the petition on these adjustments. The court’s analysis revisits Section 12(1)–12(4): a tenant contesting eviction must pay or deposit admitted arrears up to the date of payment, and must continue to pay thereafter, until proceedings end; set-off or adjustment is not generally permissible under Sections 11/12, except as may be permitted by other provisions or orders (e.g., Section 17(2)). The High Court, in a supervisory exercise under Article 227, ultimately upholds Ext.P4 and dismisses the petition, holding that the Rent Control Court’s exercise of Section 12(1) did not require interference. The judgment relies on various precedents to articulate the scope of deposit, receipts, and the limits of judicial interference.
This Rent Control Revision (RCR 211/2022) before the Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, challenges the concurrent eviction order under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, on the grounds of bona fide need. The landlords, three brothers, own Aysha Building Uppala and sought eviction to establish separate business interests: hotel operations in petition-schedule rooms, ongoing light-and-sound business in another room, and an Internet café in a third. The Rent Control Court held the landlords’ need to be bona fide and non-protectable by the tenant under provisos to Section 11(3); the Appellate Authority affirmed. The revision petitioner contends that the landlords have vacant spaces and do not genuinely need the premises for their own business, arguing lack of a bona fide need and reliance on the tenants’ livelihood tied to the tenanted rooms. The court observes that the landlords’ motive is to establish independent family businesses, and that the tenant did not establish the required prima facie case for the first or second provisos, nor prove that no other suitable buildings are available. Citing Shahul Hameed A. v. P.E. Abdu Razak to reiterate the tenant’s burden on proving the second proviso, the High Court dismisses the revision but grants a time-bound vacancy period and conditions for surrender of possession.
This transfer petition, filed by the victim (petitioner) in Crime No. 297/2017 of Nedumbasserry Police Station, seeks to transfer the trial of SC No. 118/2018 from the Principal Sessions Court, Ernakulam, to a different Sessions Court on grounds of personal bias of the presiding Judge. The petitioner, a film actor, alleges that the trial before the Additional Special Sessions Judge (SPE/CBI)-III, Ernakulam, has been tainted by hostility toward the prosecution, evidenced by a voice clip alleging connections to the judge and inquiries into the judge’s husband, who is a Circle Inspector in the Excise Department. The petition traces back to prior petitions ( Annexure-A1 ) where transfers were rejected. It also narrates developments: resignations of Special Public Prosecutors, a change in hash value of a memory card containing video clips of the alleged assault, and later, fresh forensic inquiries. The State argues administrative and statutory permissibility for transfer under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 407 Cr.P.C., and contends Annexure-A1 finality. The court ultimately holds that administrative orders to transfer are permissible to implement judicial directions, and that the petitioner’s grounds do not establish a reasonable apprehension of injustice. After evaluating case history, evidence, and time constraints, the transfer petition is dismissed. The court emphasizes that transfer should not be routine and that justice must be seen to be done within the set time frame.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4892 OF 2025 Ajnas, the petitioner-accused in Crime No.362/2023 of Nedumbassery Police Station, seeks bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The NDPS case involves seizures of ganja, MDMA, and LSD from a car on 23.06.2023; the petitioner was arrested the same day. The prosecution contends the accused is also involved in another case with intermediate quantity ganja. This Court had earlier disposed BA No.1965/2025 with directions to approach the jurisdictional court and to consider the contentions in light of Supreme Court principles. The petitioner’s counsel argued for bail, conceding custody since 23.06.2023, and offered to comply with stringent conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing possible serial involvement and ongoing investigation. The Court repeatedly cites high-profile authorities (Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh; Hasanujjaman v. West Bengal; Nitish Adhikary; Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement; Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India; Manish Sisodia; Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala; Shuaib A.S v. State of Kerala) to reinforce the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, particularly where delays and lack of presiding officers hinder timely trial. Finding compelling reasons including prolonged custody and trial delay, the Court grants bail with conditions, emphasizing liberty and fair trial, while preserving the State’s interest in investigation.
Philip Mathew, Director of May Flower Hotels Private Ltd. and proprietor of Presidency Hotel, Ernakulam, faced a complaint alleging offences under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, following a 18 December 2012 on-spot inspection by the Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology at the hotel bar. The officer served three pegs of Mansion House Brandy, with soda and water, and later measured the liquor, declaring 176 ml against the standard 180 ml, while separately alleging overpricing for soda (Rs 15 vs Rs 7 MRP). A mahazar recorded the measurements and seizure of soda and a show-cause notice preceded Annexure A1, a complaint culminating in ST No.2750/2013 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. The petitioner sought quashing of Annexure A1 and subsequent proceedings. Counsel for the petitioner pressed that the procedure was illegal and that the offences under several sections were not attracted, arguing the mahazar did not describe the measurement method or seizure of the peg measure and the liquor. They cited R. Pasupathy v. Inspector, Legal Metrology and urged that the price discrepancy related to soda was addressed by higher courts, including Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court in Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Association of India v. Union of India. The Public Prosecutor defended that if some offences were not attracted, others remained. The High Court ultimately found the evidence and procedure wanting, held that continuing prosecution would amount to abuse of process, and quashed the proceedings; the petition was allowed.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.683 of 2008 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, challenging an award dated 06.03.2012 that awarded Rs. 8,10,757 for injuries in a road traffic accident on 31.08.2007 in which the claimant, a 40-year-old prawns merchant, suffered an amputation of the left leg and a 40% disability, resulting in loss of livelihood. The appellant argues inadequacy of compensation on grounds including an incorrect notional monthly income (the Tribunal fixed Rs. 4,000 against an claimed Rs. 15,000) and under-compensation for loss of earning capacity, future medical/treatment expenses, and prosthesis costs. He relies on Ramachandrappa to fix notional income at Rs.6,000 per month (years 2007) and on Pranay Sethi for adding 25% future prospects due to disability. The insurer admitted the vehicle was insured; the owner-driver stood ex parte. The High Court revisited heads of compensation, applying the 2011 Ramachandrappa principle and the 2017 Pranay Sethi formulation to increase notional income to Rs.6,000 and to add 25% future prospects, resulting in enhanced compensation totaling Rs.6,51,000 (Rs.2,89,000 as enhanced amount) with Rs.75,000 for prosthesis and Rs.25,000 for maintenance. The insurer was directed to deposit this enhanced sum within two months with interest; no costs.
MACA NO. 1307 OF 2012; MACA NO. 1229 OF 2012 These MACAs arise from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, in OP(MV) 1070/2007 concerning the death of Harikrishnan in a motor collision on 25 January 2007, when an Innova car carrying several occupants was struck by a container lorry MH-20/AA-7932. The claimants (Athira V., Durga, a minor, and Santakumari) sought compensation for loss of dependency, funeral expenses, loss of estate, and other heads. The insurer defended liability and contended the quantum; the Tribunal found the lorry driver negligent and liable, awarding Rs 18,34,000 with interest. The High Court, delivering a common judgment on 18 October 2023 in MACA 1307/2012 (claimants) and MACA 1229/2012 (insurer), partly allowed the appeal and partly dismissed the insurer’s cross-appeal by enhancing the compensation. It applied the Pranay Sethi framework, adding 40% future prospects to the deceased’s income, corrected the deduction to 1/3 for personal expenses, and used a multiplier of 16. It also increased funeral expenses to Rs 15,000 and loss of estate to Rs 10,000, and reworked head losses including loss of consortium at Rs 1,20,000, offsetting Rs 25,000 already awarded under love and affection per recent Supreme Court decisions. The court directed the insurer to deposit the enhanced sum within three months along with interest and costs, thereby modifying the original award by Rs 8,39,800.
