BAIL APPL. NO.4525 OF 2025 This is a bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) filed by Allan Xaviour, accused in Crime No.1915/2023 of Pala Police Station alleging offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The prosecution contends the applicant obtained Rs.1 lakh from the defacto complainant by promising a Middle East job, which was not provided and the money not repaid. The petitioner contends that he borrowed the money and, due to financial difficulties, could not repay; he claims a false case has been foisted against him and has produced medical annexures (A2–A4) indicating illness. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, noting the petitioner’s involvement in another case. The court did not delve into the merits but remarked uncertainty whether a job visa can be secured by paying Rs.1 lakh and observed possible financial dealings; the matter was left to investigation. Emphasising the bail principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, the court cited Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of UP, Manish Sisodia v. CBI, and other precedents to justify prescribing stringent conditions. The order grants bail with conditions: appearance before the IO within two weeks, bond Rs.50,000 with two sureties, no travel without permission, no similar offence, cooperation with investigation, and potential recoveries allowed under Supreme Court guidance. The decision is limited to this bail application; violations may result in cancellation.
This writ petition challenges Ext. P3, a 7 October 2020 order of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission directing payment of 50% of salary arrears to the petitioners. The petitioners, Malabar Devaswom Board and its Commissioner, contend that the Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain Ext. P1, the complaint filed by the first respondent, and that the matter lies outside the Commission’s domain under Regulation 17 of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 2001. The court refers to a prior decision, W.P.(C) No. 18537/2020, which discussed the scheme of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, including sections 8B(2), 38, 76(1), 80 and 81, and held that the Government and the Board are bound to provide funds and pay salaries to temple staff; it concluded that salary is payable notwithstanding financial constraints. The court also cites W.P.(C) No. 12582/2021 for directions on salary disbursement in line with Exts. P5 and P7 judgments. Regulation 17 is noted as a tool to dismiss frivolous or ineligible complaints. On these facts, the High Court holds the KS HRC order Ext. P1 is vitiated by lack of jurisdiction and sets it aside. The writ petition is disposed of; the court directs consideration of timely salary payments consistent with the cited decisions. The decision underscores the interplay between statutory funding obligations under the Act and procedural controls in the Commission, while preserving the Government’s authority to regulate finances.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4890 OF 2025 This is a Kerala High Court bail application under Section 482 of the BNSS filed by Rahul B, aged 22, against the State of Kerala in respect of Crime No.155/2025 of Pallithottam Police Station, Kollam. The petition seeks bail in connection with offences alleged under Section 123 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act, based on allegations that on 02.02.2025 the petitioner supplied liquor to a minor friend of the defacto complainant with knowledge that it would harm her health, leading to consumption by the minors. The prosecution contends the case is serious, though it is not clear whether Section 123 of the BNS is attracted. The maximum punishment for Section 77 JJ Act is seven years. The court reiterates the established principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement, and notes the need to balance personal liberty with public interest. It also references Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh and Manish Sisodia v Central Bureau of Investigation, to underscore that bail can be granted even in serious allegations when warranted by facts and the possibility of fair trial. The court also cites Sushila Aggarwal and Anzar Azeez to justify investigating powers during bail and the applicable principle from Kerala jurisprudence. Ultimately, the court grants bail with stringent conditions after due consideration of the facts and law, underscoring that liberty must be protected within lawful limits.
The petitioner, a member of the Pullur Service Co-operative Bank (4th respondent), challenges the election-venue notification for the Managing Committee election, fixed by the Part-time Administrator (3rd respondent) for 10.05.2025 at Govt. Vocational Higher Secondary School, Ambalathara. The petitioner had preferred Ext.P4 petition seeking fixing of the polling venue at Govt. U.P. School, Pullur, arguing that the Ambalathara venue is over seven kilometers away from the bank’s head office and in a region prone to political violence; he contends that the election has traditionally been held at Pullur and demands accessibility for around 5,600 members. The 1st respondent notified the election under Rule 35A(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (KCS Rules). The counter-affidavit argues that Pullur is not convenient for a large membership and that Ambalathara offers a larger, safer, more accessible venue with better facilities, police proximity, and traffic arrangements. The court held that the venue decision is a factual matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the statutory authorities under the KCS Act and Rules, and cannot be re-evaluated by the court under Article 226. Citing Raghavan v. Commissioner and Special Secretary and Keethedathu Assainar, the petition was dismissed. The order preserves the administrator’s venue choice.
Vijayan T. @ Thankaraj, a devotee of Major Vellayani Devi Temple under the Travancore Devaswom Board, approached the Kerala High Court seeking a writ of mandamus under Article 226 to compel officials to grant him permission to make Pachappanthal and to perform traditional rites such as Theevetti for the Aswathy Pongala Maholsavam 2025 (1200ME, 26.03.2025–01.04.2025). He claimed over 15 years of experience in making Pachappanthal, his grandfather having done so, and relied on representations Exts.P2 and P3 dated 03.02.2025 and 17.03.2025, as well as a verbal assurance from the Sub Group Officer. On 17.03.2025 he was informed another person had been selected. The Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 vests administration of Devaswoms in the Board (Section 3) and imposes duties to ensure prompt rites (Section 15A) and to manage temples and ceremonies (Sections 31, 31A) under Part I and the Board’s rules (Temple Advisory Committees). The Court cites decisions that temple worship is a civil right subject to tradition (Major Vellayani; Rajalakshmi) and that mandamus issues require a statutory duty (Bihar Eastern; Oriental Bank of Commerce). The petitioner’s case hinges on disputed factual questions and lacks a clear statutory right, leading to dismissal. The Board’s statutory duties and temple practices govern, not the petitioner’s exclusive claim.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3940 OF 2025 This Kerala High Court bail application concerns Vinesh Kumar K.K., accused in Crime No. 26/2024 of the Cyber Crime Police Station, Thrissur, under sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. The petition seeks bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The court recalls a prior order directing interrogation by the Investigating Officer (IO) and contemplates further cooperation by the petitioner. The Public Prosecutor suggested that if arrest occurs after interrogation, the petitioner may be released on bail with stringent conditions. The court emphasizes the fundamental principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Supreme Court authorities on personal liberty and the need to avoid unnecessary custodial interrogation. Relying on decisions such as Chidambaram, Siddharth, Joginder Kumar, and Manish Sisodia, the court finds that a grant of bail with conditions would safeguard fair trial and public interest. The order finally directs two-week IO appearance, bond terms (Rs. 50,000 with two sureties), ongoing cooperation, prohibition on leaving India, and possible bail cancellation on violation, while noting support from Sushila Aggarwal and Anzar Azeez for conditional supervision.
O.P.(Crl.) No. 314 of 2023 This is an original petition (OP(Crl.) No. 314 of 2023) filed before the Kerala High Court challenging an order of the Family Court, Palakkad (MC No.179/2018), which allowed an amendment (Ext.P4) to the pleadings in a maintenance matter originally filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, Govindarajan @ Govind, contends that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for amendment of pleadings and that the Family Court’s Ext.P4 amendment is illegal, arguing the amendment would insert new facts and allegations aimed at circumventing the petitioner’s objections. The respondents (Vidya and Samanvitha, a minor) contend that the maintenance case originally filed lacked certain details and that the Family Court has inherent discretion to permit amendments in the interest of justice, even in the absence of an express provision for amendments, citing several judgments (Madhavi v. Thupran; Ramarajan v. Krishnan; Nallan v. Palaniammal; Sabita Sahoo; U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Modi Distillery; SR Sukumar; Kuttan v. Varanamalyam Kuries). The High Court discusses the scope of amendment powers, balancing technical objections against the ends of justice, but ultimately dismisses the petition. The court directs the Family Court to accept any additional counter-affidavit within two weeks, if filed.
MACA NO.263 OF 2020; CO. No.63/2022 This is an appeal by the insurer Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Limited challenging the award of compensation in OP(MV) 1746/2017 before the Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, for the death of Gopalakrishnan, who was 73 and a Coolie, killed in a road accident on 01.04.2017 when the motorcycle driven by the 2nd respondent struck him as he walked along the road. The Tribunal found the insurer liable and fixed Rs. 6,27,500 as compensation with interest at 8% and costs. The insurer contends the quantum was miscalculated; they challenge the assessment under loss of dependency, arguing that the deceased’s income should be Rs.11,000 per month, supported by Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq, and that a multiplier of 5 should be applied under the Second Schedule per Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation. They also urge that only the first respondent be treated as dependent, allowing a 50% deduction for personal expenses, citing Sujatha P.V. The respondents counter that multiplier 5 is proper and that the tribunal correctly included awards for loss of consortium and love and affection, subject to Satinder Kaur’s cap. The Kerala High Court partly allows the appeal, reworking the compensation to Rs.5,37,500 by applying a 5x multiplier and a 50% personal expenses deduction, directing deposit within three months.
Peter P.K. @ Shibu, the appellant in MACA 2683 of 2012, sustained severe injuries when his motorcycle was struck by a vehicle driven rashly on 7 September 2008. He remained bedridden for a prolonged period, with hospitalization totaling 145 days, and became incapacitated to perform basic self-care. He challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta’s award of Rs 9,52,100, contending that the award undervalued his disability, future care, and attendant needs. The appellant was assessed by a Medical Board at Kozhikode with 80% permanent disability and 100% occupational disability, and his original compensation claim stood at Rs 30,26,000 (reduced to Rs 9,52,100). His counsel urged enhancement under heads such as Pain and Suffering and Loss of Amenities, aided by Ext.C2 (disability certificate) and Ext.A10 (discharge). The Insurance Company argued that 2008 standards applied and post-2008 earnings data were unreliable. The Kerala High Court re-evaluated the matter, noting the tribunal’s notional income of Rs 3,000 per month was too low and should reflect higher standards, drawing on Ramachandrappa, Rajani, Kajal, Pranay Sethi, and Satheesh E. to fix a notional income of Rs 7,500 per month with 40% future prospects, and to recognize attendant care as Rs 5,000 per month. The appeal is partly allowed, with substantial enhancements to permanent disability, loss of earnings, bystander expenses, extra nourishment, Pain and Suffering, and Loss of Amenities, and with 9% interest and costs on enhanced amounts, while a specific future treatment provision is left unresolved for lack of evidence.
This Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arises from a decree awarding Rs. 64,720 in compensation to the claimant for injuries suffered as a pillion rider in a 2001 accident on the Venganoor–Punnammoodu road. The claimant, Surendran, a 35-year-old casual labourer, sustained a Type II compound fracture of the right leg, resulting in permanent disability and prolonged hospitalization. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) held respondents 1 and 2 liable jointly and severally and exonerated insurers (respondents 3 and 4) on the ground that the pillion rider’s policy either did not exist or did not cover pillion riders. The appellant contends that notional income for a 2001 date should be Rs. 3,000 per month (supported by the Supreme Court’s Ramachandrappa decision) and that loss of earnings, extra nourishment, bystander expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and disability should be reevaluated with a longer earning period and higher headwise awards. The appellate court re-computes, allowing enhanced compensation of Rs. 94,040, fixes liability on respondents 1 and 2, and exonerates 3 and 4. It directs payment with interest within two months and adherence to directive circulars on deposit. The appeal is allowed with no costs."
This High Court of Kerala, in a Civil Revision Petition (CRP No.119 of 2022) arising from OS 2/2019 of the Sub Court, Pala, revisits the maintenance of a suit filed by loan borrowers against the bank after forfeiture of an auction-deposit under SARFAESI. The Federal Bank had initiated recovery measures under the SARFAESI Act against Kuttiyanickal Rubbers Private Limited for a defaulted loan and facilitated a sale of secured assets to the plaintiffs for Rs. 135 lakhs. The plaintiffs paid 25% of the sale price (Rs. 33.75 lakhs) but later challenged the bank’s forfeiture of the deposit, claiming that liabilities attached to the property must be cleared before payment. The Sub Court held the suit maintainable, but the revision petition argued that forfeiture and related measures fall within Section 13(4) and Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, making the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) the proper forum. The High Court, citing Agarwal Tracom, Mardia Chemicals, and Electrosteel Castings, held that the civil suit is not maintainable and that the appropriate recourse lies with the DRT, while allowing the revision petition and directing the Sub Judge to decide the suit with consideration of possible DRT proceedings and exclusion of the relevant period if the petition is filed there.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P4 order dated 27 March 2020 of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission in Case No. 1870/11/12/2021. The petitioner, a former vice-chairman of the Kerala State Youth Welfare Board (1987-1990) and a political figure, contends he was falsely implicated in a 1992 cheating case (IPC 420) and subjected to arrest and a brief jail stay, causing grave humiliation and disruption to his political career. He alleges that the case lingered for years without progress despite a High Court direction, and that he sought quashing of the proceedings before the High Court and subsequently before the Supreme Court in W.P.(Crl) No.96/2016, which the Supreme Court disposed of as infructuous after it was revealed that the crime was closed in 2011 and accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In 2021, the petitioner approached the Kerala State Human Rights Commission seeking compensation of Rs. 1.41 crore for alleged violation of his rights to life and liberty. Ext.P4 dismissed the complaint as not acceptable and as time-barred, citing Sections 36(1) and 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and other regulations. The High Court, after reviewing arguments and authorities, held that the Commission cannot review its own orders absent statutory power, and that the complaint was barred by one-year limitation. The petition was dismissed. The decision emphasizes that review jurisdiction is strictly statutory and not a vehicle to re-examine merits.
This is a criminal revision petition by the sole accused, BinoY Thomas, challenging the remand order and the acquittal/conviction sequence arising from a case of misappropriation in a cooperative society. The accused, previously Secretary of Pathampara Milk Co-operative Society, faced trial for offences including misappropriation of cattle feed and funds, with initial conviction under Section 408 IPC and acquittal on other charges. The Appellate Court reappreciated the evidence and held that there was no direct proof tying the accused to the disputed entries in the society registers or to receipt of the misappropriated loads, reversed the conviction, and remanded the case to the trial court for fresh consideration. The remand directed the prosecution to adduce further evidence to establish criminal breach of trust and granted the accused an opportunity to adduce additional evidence. The petitioner contended that such remand under Section 386(b) CrPC is permissible only in limited circumstances and relied on decisions including Ajay Kumar Ghoshal and others v. State of Bihar and another (2017) 12 SCC 699 and Nasib Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another to argue that remand was improper. The High Court agreed that retrial is a drastic remedy and, in the absence of irremediable irregularities, set aside the remand and the appellate judgment, acquitting the petitioner in full, and directing his release.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4674 OF 2025 Gladwin Thomas and Goodwin Thomas, petitioners, are accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.178/2025 of Cherpu Police Station. They approach the Kerala High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) seeking bail in a case alleging offences under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for allegedly cheating a de-facto complainant by promising a job in New Zealand and receiving Rs. 2,00,000, with no job materializing. The petitioners claim they are the first accused’s sons and not involved in day-to-day operations; the first accused is already arrested; they are prepared to comply with stringent conditions if released on bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail. The court, while acknowledging that bail is the rule and jail the exception, cites Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) and later pronouncements, including Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Joginder Kumar, and Manish Sisodia, to emphasize personal liberty and fair trial. After considering the facts, the court grants bail with conditions: the petitioners must appear before the Investigation Officer within two weeks for interrogation; if arrest is contemplated, they shall be released on bond of Rs.50,000 each with two solvent sureties; they must not leave India, must cooperate with the investigation, and must not induce or threaten witnesses. Violations may lead to cancellation of bail. The order also cites Sushila Aggarwal and Anzar Azeez as supportive precedents, and notes that recoveries may be effected during bail if necessary.
Rony, the appellant, challenges the award of Rs. 21,61,900 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, in OP(MV) No. 67/2014 for injuries suffered in a road accident on 24 November 2013. The Tribunal awarded compensation after evaluating the evidence, but the appellant contends the figure is inadequate and seeks higher amounts under several heads. The appellant produced Ext.A-10 salary certificate claiming an income of Rs. 16,000 per month; PW2 testified, but the court found PW2’s credibility suspect since he is in private service and no reliable payment corroboration was shown. Consequently, the Tribunal adopted a notional income of Rs. 12,000, with a Rs. 3,000 uplift beyond the Ramachandrappa framework, and did not grant future prospects. The appellant argues the medical records show a severe injury leading to above-knee amputation, justifying higher compensation under Pain and Suffering, as well as future treatment needs for prosthetics (Ext.A9) and other related costs. The Insurance Company defends the assessment, asserting Ext.A-10 was not properly proved and the notional income basis was correct. The High Court agrees that future prospects should be added (40%) and that additional compensation for disfiguration and marriage prospects is warranted. It reduces the Tribunal’s 9% interest to 8% and modifies several heads, while keeping other heads intact, granting relief to the appellant with open rights for future treatment.
This WA 617/2025 arises from a contempt petition (Cont.C.No.2920 of 2024) filed by N. Prakash before the Kerala High Court challenging a Single Judge’s 24.03.2025 order that dismissed the contempt petition as not maintainable and observed misuse of court process, with a warning of heavy costs for future non-maintenance petitions. The background involves a fresh Government order dated 18.11.2024 under Rule 120 of the Kerala Service Rules, Part III, restricting retrospective pension unless a special order is issued after a three-year gap from retirement. The petitioner, who seeks pension from 07.04.2006 to 23.11.2021 and death-cum-retirement gratuity, challenged related Government orders (Exts.P7, P9, P10) in earlier writ petitions, notably W.P(C) No.42443/2024 and W.P(C) No.9508/2023, with Annexure A4 (01.07.2024) directing reconsideration within three months. The Division Bench analyzes whether the contempt petition is maintainable under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act and surveys jurisprudence on appeals under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, including Midnapore Peoples’ Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Baradakanta Mishra, Purshotam Dass Goel, State of Maharashtra v. Allibhoy, J.S. Parihar, and the Full Bench in Suni B.T. v. Vinayaka Granites, as well as Sukhdeep Sangwan. The court ultimately dismisses the writ appeal for lack of maintainability, clarifying that observations in the Single Judge’s judgment cannot be challenged via intra‑court appeal unless applicable, and imposes heavy costs for future non-maintainable petitions.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4637 OF 2025 This Bail Application concerns four accused persons in Crime No.126/2025 of Poochakkal Police Station, Alappuzha, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The petitioners, accused 1 to 3 and 4, challenge the order/judgment in CRMC No.332 of 2025 of the District & Sessions Court, Alappuzha, possibly seeking bail. The prosecution alleges offences under sections 118(1), 126(2), 332(c), 351, 115(2), 296(b), 74, 189, 190 and 191 of the BNS, arising from an incident in which the petitioners allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, trespassed into the complainant’s residence, and caused bodily harm due to prior animosity over the complainant’s dissemination of information about their drunkenness. The learned Judge observes that the petitioners claim the case is false, there was no serious injury to the victim, and there are no criminal antecedents; the maximum potential punishment is up to seven years. Relying on established bail jurisprudence, the court reiterates that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement and subsequent Supreme Court and Kerala High Court authorities including Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Joginder Kumar, Manish Sisodia, Sushila Aggarwal, and Anzar Azeez. The court ultimately grants bail with stringent conditions, directing appearance before the Investigating Officer within two weeks for interrogation, a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, weekly appearances, travel restrictions, and non-commission of similar offences, with the caveat that violations may lead to cancellation of bail by the jurisdictional Court.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under section 482 Cr.P.C before the Kerala High Court, concerning a challenge to two orders: (i) the 27 April 2017 order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, directing further investigation under section 173(8) Cr.P.C in Crime No. 3372/2016 and (ii) the 29 February 2020 order in CRL.R.P.No.37/2019 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur. The crime tripwire involves allegations that, while the first petitioner served as Chairman of Navodaya Kuries Ltd., he misappropriated Rs. 82,392 through forged documents and diverted funds to the second petitioner’s kuri account; offences alleged include sections 403, 406, 409, 417, 420, 468 and 471 IPC read with section 34 IPC. The police referred the matter to the CJM after a refer-report, which was opposed by the de facto complainant, resulting in a cryptic order to proceed with further investigation. The ASJ remanded with the directive that the CJM must give reasons for directing further investigation and consider objections to the refer-report. The petitioners argued (i) maintainability of a revision against the CJM order, (ii) the scope of investigation under 173(8) Cr.P.C., and (iii) the lack of reasons in the CJM order. The State and Navodaya Kuries Ltd. urged upholding the ASJ’s insistence on a reasoned order. The High Court dismisses the petition but directs the CJM to pass fresh, reasoned orders in compliance with the ASJ’s directions, thereby reinforcing the necessity for speaking, reasoned judicial orders.
Praveesh A., an ex-serviceman, was appointed as a guard with the State Bank of India on 24 March 2021. He received Ext.P2 termination on 22 September 2021 for suppressing information about involvement in a criminal case. He challenged the termination by filing a writ petition, arguing the information sought in the appointment form (Column 14) was answered in the negative as he believed he had not been arrested, given that he had been granted anticipatory bail and later acquitted (Exts.P3, P4). The court examines whether non-disclosure can amount to willful suppression. The Respondents contend suppression of arrest details goes to the root of trust, and the petitioner’s arrest and court appearances show he was involved in the matter; the bank cannot be bound to continue his service. The petitioner argues that mere acquittal, absence of custody, and the acquittal should be considered; reliance on Avatar Singh v. Union of India, and a key proposition that pendency and suppression differ. The court recalls that arrest is not identical to custody; quoting Deepak Mahajan’s exposition on arrest; the court highlights the need to consider antecedents of the employee in light of Avatar Singh’s guidelines, including potential exceptions for non-trivial cases. The Court disposes of the petition by directing SBI to reconsider the petitioner’s case, ignoring Ext.P2 and Ext.P6, and to issue a reasoned order within three months, citing Avatar Singh paragraphs 38.3 and 38.4.2.
This Kerala High Court MACA is an appeal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by Sivankunju challenging an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam, in OP(MV) No.304 of 2014. The accident occurred on 9 July 2013 when a car (KL-13Y 5336) allegedly driven rashly struck the petitioner, who sustained serious injuries including an occipital fracture and intracranial injuries, with a disability of 9.75%. The Tribunal awarded Rs 1,46,670 in total compensation and directed the insurer to pay, but the appellant challenged the quantum. The insurer admitted the accident and the policy, but disputed negligence. The appellant contends the Tribunal erred in fixed income (Rs 5,000 per month) and should apply Ramachandrappa’s doctrine to fix a notional income of Rs 9,000 per month; the court relies on Ramachandrappa to fix notional income and applies the standard notional-income approach, as well as future prospects (10%), and the multiplier (11) per Sarla Verma, while accepting 9.75% disability. Heads such as pain and suffering, loss of amenities, bystander expenses and loss of earning were recalculated: loss of earnings to Rs 45,000; pain and suffering to Rs 50,000; amenities to Rs 30,000; bystander Rs 3,000; nourishment Rs 5,000; total Rs 2,75,433. The appeal is allowed in part; the insurer (Respondent 3) must deposit Rs 2,75,433 with interest within two months, and the enhanced amount carries 8% interest.
