This is a motor accident claims appeal (MACA No. 362/2014) pending before the Kerala High Court, challenging the MACT Manjeri award dated 06.06.2011 in OPMV No. 846 of 2007 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant, Sameer, sustained injuries in a road accident on 27.05.2004 when a motorcycle driven rashly by the 1st respondent collided with him. The Tribunal assessed compensation at Rs. 1,27,669 with 50% contributory negligence attributed to the petitioner and 50% to the insurer, directing the insurer to pay half. The appellant contends the quantum is inadequate, and the Tribunal erred in income fixation (Rs. 3,000 per month, though the petitioner was a butcher), guidance from Ramachandrappa for notional income (Rs. 4,500), and the application of future prospects and the correct multiplier (40% future prospects per Pranay Sethi; multiplier per Sarla Verma). The respondents (owner, driver, insurer) contest negligence findings and support the Tribunal’s calculation on liability. The court relies on Supreme Court precedents to re-evaluate income, earnings, comprehensive heads (pain and suffering, loss of amenities, bystander expenses, extra nourishment) and to recompute total compensation, ultimately allowing the appeal in part, enhancing several heads, and directing deposit and disbursement of Rs. 131,475 with accrued interest, within two months. The decision clarifies liability and recalculates entitlements with 50% contributory negligence maintained.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4588 OF 2025 This bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) is before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Bail App. No. 4588 of 2025. The petitioner, Sameer, is accused in Crime No. 712/2025 of Kayamkulam Police Station for alleged offences under sections 329(3), 296(b), 115(2), 126(2), 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution contends a family dispute led to trespass into the complainant’s sister’s residence, obscene language, and an assault on the defacto complainant, with the only non-bailable offence being 118(1) BNS; maximum punishment is three years. The petitioner’s counsel presses that there is a matrimonial dispute and argues for bail on the general bail principle that bail is a rule and jail is the exception, emphasizing non-heinous nature of the acts and lack of risk of flight, with readiness to cooperate in investigation. The court relies on jurisprudence from the Supreme Court and Kerala High Court, including Chidambaram P. v. Enforcement Directorate, Siddharth v. State of U.P., Manish Sisodia v. CBI, Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala, to uphold the bail principle. After balancing the law and facts, the court grants bail with conditions: two weeks to appear for interrogation, bond Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, obedience to conditions, no leaving India without permission, and ongoing cooperation with investigation, with power to cancel bail if violated.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4456 OF 2025 Raveen @ Sankar and Midhun, the petitioners, seek bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 281/2025 of Nemom Police Station. The prosecution alleges that on 26 February 2025 the accused assaulted the first informant: the second accused allegedly punched and restrained him, the fourth accused kicked the informant’s abdomen, and the first accused attempted to strike the informant with a punching bar, causing head injury; the others joined in the assault with a weapon covered in a dhoti. The petitioners have been in custody since 27 February 2025. The defence counsel urged release on bail with stringent conditions, arguing that ongoing detention is unnecessary for investigation or trial, and that the petitioners are ready to cooperate. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, noting that the first petitioner has criminal antecedents. The High Court weighed these considerations, observing that detention is not necessary given the facts and circumstances, and that bail with conditions would safeguard the objectives of fair trial and public interest. Relying on Supreme Court and Kerala cases that guard against unnecessary detention, including Chidambaram, Jalaluddin Khan, Manish Sisodia, and Anzar Azeez, the court granted bail with a bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties, imposed travel, appearance, and non-inducement conditions, and stated the order is interlocutory, made for bail purposes only. If conditions are violated, bail can be cancelled.
Cont.Case (C) No.129 of 2021 This Contempt of Court Case (Civil) No.129 of 2021 was heard by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court arising from W.P.(C) No.31606 of 2016 and connected matters. The petitioners, several former employees from Indian Rare Earths Limited, filed the contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging willful disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure A1 of the High Court’s judgment dated 12.10.2018 in WP(C) No.31606/2016 and connected matters. The backdrop includes the apex Court’s dismissal of a Special Leave Petition against the 2018 judgment on 01.04.2019, which was later recalled, culminating in a detailed judgment dated 04.11.2022 in Civil Appeals 8143-8144 of 2022 and connected matters (Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B., AIR 2022 SC 5634). The 2022 judgment held that the notification G.S.R.609(E) dated 22 August 2014 is legal and valid, and directed read-downs and extensions related to the pension scheme. In light of these developments, the Kerala High Court held that the petitioners’ entitlement to higher pension requires reconsideration by the EPFO under the apex judgment, and closed the contempt petition, while reserving EPFO’s right to reconsider entitlement in accordance with law. The judgment is delivered by Anil K. Narendran, J., and G. Girish, J. with final orders to be read in light of the apex decision.
This writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 193/2023) before the Kerala High Court challenges the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2022 (Fourth Amendment) and the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services (Eighth) (Addressable Systems) Tariff Order, 2022, arguing that both are ultra vires the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 and violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The petition traces the regulatory evolution from 2006 CAS pricing ceilings, through the 2012 DAS framework and 2017 regime that introduced broadcaster pricing freedom, to the 2020 amendments and the 2022 framework. Petitioners allege non-consultative, non-transparent amendments that would facilitate producer/broadcaster discounts, inflating bouquets and shifting costs to consumers, thereby impairing consumer choice and competition. TRAI defends the 2022 measures as a legitimate, consultative evolution aligned with the Act to ensure technical interconnection, non-discriminatory pricing, and consumer protection in a digitizing market. The court heard from petitioners and respondents, noted extensive TRAI process (consultation papers, committee, meetings, RIOs, directives) and ultimately held that TRAI’s 2022 Regulations and Tariff Order were enacted following due process within the statutory framework. The petition is dismissed; the 2022 framework remains in force in the public interest.
BAIL APPL. NO. 512 OF 2023 This is a regular bail application under Section 439 CrPC by Vishnu, the first accused in Crime No. 1957/2022 of Sasthamcotta Police Station, Kollam. The prosecution alleges that on the night of 29.12.2022, Vishnu and another accused restrained the defacto complainant with a common intention to cause harm, with the second accused beating and pushing the complainant and Vishnu delivering injuries with a freewheel, resulting in serious injuries to the complainant and another witness. The offences comprise IPC sections 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 341, and 307 read with 34, with a prior 308 IPC incident mentioned, indicating a pattern of violence. The petitioner claims innocence, highlighting that he was arrested on 07.01.2023 and that investigation is progressing; reference is made to the bail granted to the co-accused in a separate order. The Public Prosecutor counters that the assault produced serious injuries (28 stitches on the head and 19 on the face) and that premature release would adversely affect the ongoing investigation. After evaluating the case diary, the court notes the gravity of the alleged offences, yet considers the petitioner’s custody since 07.01.2023 and the need to protect the investigation. The court grants bail with stringent conditions, including bonds, non-interference with witnesses, cooperation, periodic appearances before the IO for six weeks, and a prohibition on committing further crimes during bail, with cancellation if violated.
WA No. 1473 of 2022 c/w WA No. 1490 of 2022 These writ appeals arise from a dispute over disciplinary actions against Mathew Joseph, the Secretary of the Puduppadi Service Co-Operative Bank, and the subsequent suspension, charge-memos and purported fresh proceedings. The writ petitioner challenged the sequence of events culminating in Ext. P15 and Ext. P16, including the suspension and dismissal orders; he sought arrears of salary and other monetary benefits from 3-11-2014 and urged expeditious completion of the enquiry. The 3rd respondent society had issued Ext. P2 show cause, Ext. P4 charge memo, Ext. P8 suspension, and Ext. P9 second charge memo, followed by Ext. P12 dismissal. The Co-operative Arbitration Court issued Ext. P14, which the Single Judge treated as invalidating the entire disciplinary process and directed the society to consider the petitioner’s salary claim and the subsistence allowance, with a four-month outer limit to complete Ext. P15 proceedings. Writ Appeal 1490/2022, filed by the society, attacks the legality of directing salary payment and contends the back wages should await the fresh enquiry’s outcome. The Division Bench ultimately holds that the prior enquiry was non-est and that fresh proceedings were necessary, awarding salary up to Exts. P15/P16 to the petitioner while dismissing the society’s plea in WA 1490.
Manu @ Antony, the petitioner, challenges an order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Kollam invoking powers under Section 111 Cr.P.C. The SDM issued two notices (Annexure-A1 and Annexure-A4) in MC No.15/2023, asserting imminent need to require the petitioner to enter into a bond to maintain public tranquility, based on a single criminal case against him (crime under Sec. 302 IPC). The core issue is whether issuing a notice under Sec. 111 Cr.P.C on the basis of a single case is justified. The High Court relies on Santhosh M.V. and others v. State of Kerala and others (2014 (3) KLT 2837) to stress that merely being an accused in one case does not suffice to initiate proceedings under Sec. 107 Cr.P.C; the order must demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of breach of peace with concrete basis and imminent necessity. The decisions in Ahammad Kabeer v. State of Kerala and Girish’s Case (cited supra) are cited to emphasize that the substance of information must be stated in the order under Sec. 107 Cr.P.C, and that merely reproducing crime numbers is inadequate. The Court finds Annexure-A1 and Annexure-A4 to be void for lack of applied mind and substance, quashes them, and allows the CRL.MC, thereby setting aside the proceedings under Ss. 107 to 111 Cr.P.C.
This Regular Second Appeal arises from a suit O.S.110/2010 before the Munsiff, Vaikom, in which the plaintiffs Santosh, Mahilamani, Biju and the late Mathew sought a perpetual injunction to restrain obstruction in the use of a 3-foot wide pathway ( plaint schedule item No.3 ) that provided access to the rear/ eastern and northern sides of the plaintiffs’ building (items 1 and 2). The predecessor of the defendants had erected a gate on the eastern side, allegedly to secure the property, and had allowed a gate to block plaint item No.3. The trial court held that the plaintiffs possessed an indefeasible right of easement by grant over item No.3, and permanently restrained the defendants from obstructing that pathway. The first appellate court found that plaint item No.3 property belonged to the defendants but held that the plaintiffs had a right of passage as envisaged in Exts.A1 and A3, issuing a perpetual injunction against trespass into item No.3 while keeping the defendant’s gate locked. This Court, on second appeal, examined whether easement by grant could be extinguished due to the non-usage of the staircase that formed the original basis for the grant. It affirmed the lower courts’ view that the easement by grant exists and that extinction merely by non-use is not warranted, relying on multiple precedents and a purposive construction of Exts.A1 and A3. The appeal was dismissed in limine, upholding plaintiffs’ right of way despite structural changes to the building.
This writ appeal, filed by the Community Development Society (CDS) and Shelly Prasad, challenges a learned Single Judge’s July 21, 2022 order in WP(C) 10428/2022 that declined the petitioners’ requests for extraordinary relief and quashing Exhibit P3. The appellants claim that CDS has occupied two rooms on the first floor of the Kuttampuzha Grama Panchayath building for 17 years, and that the Panchayat’s plan to shift the office about 1 km away would disrupt daily administration, public service, and access to essential records. The grievances include locked premises and the fear of operational collapse if the space is vacated. The Grama Panchayat counters that space constraints necessitate relocation and that the offices belong to a permissive occupancy rather than a tenanted right; a more extensive Panchayat building is available for the CDS. It maintains that proper notice was given and that the relocation is a policy decision taken in the interest of efficient functioning. The learned Judge did not find legal infirmity in the Panchayat’s action. The Division Bench, while upholding the policy decision, held that the petitioners’ request for continued occupancy could not be entertained, but granted time until November 30, 2022 to vacate to ensure a smooth transition. The court also noted that invoking Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is not appropriate after the writ petition; There is no mala fides alleged; The order is consistent with the balance of convenience and administrative needs.
This Original Petition (Civil) challenges an order dated 03 November 2021 passed in I.A.6/2021 in O.S.1396/2005 by the 2nd Additional Munsiff, Ernakulam. The plaintiffs sought to reject the pleadings in the additional written statement filed by the additional defendants 12 to 14, who are legal heirs of the deceased defendant 3, alleging that the pleadings deviation from the original defendant’s plea were impermissible under Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC. The learned Munsiff allowed the petition, relying on a Kerala High Court decision (2020 (1) KLT 398; 2020(1) KLJ 662) in Sukhalal & Others v. Jacob and Another. The petitioners argued, relying on classic authorities such as Jagdish Chander Chatterjee v. Sri Kishan (1973 (SCR) 850) and Bal Kishan v. Om Parkash (AIR 1986 SC 1952), that legal representatives cannot raise contentions contrary to the deceased defendant’s defence, except for personal rights, and that Order 22 Rule 4(2) does not permit new rights. The respondents contended LR may defend in their representative capacity and may raise all pleas the deceased could have urged, including independent title if impleaded in personal capacity. The High Court cites Jagdish Chander Chatterjee, Bal Kishan, Vidyavati v. Man Mohan (1995 KHC 469), and Krishnan Sathyadas v. Lakshmikutty Amma (1990 KHC 469) to reaffirm settled law that LR cannot introduce contentions contrary to the deceased’s defence, and dismisses the petition, upholding the impugned order as lawful and non-arbitrary.
Rasiya C.K., an Anganwadi Worker stationed at Padikkunnu Mini Anganwadi Centre No.96, approached this Court challenging a 2022 order denying her regularization after more than ten years of service on a provisional engagement. She had relied on Ext.P2, a judgment directing the authorities to consider her claim under the applicable Government Orders, and contends that she has continuously served for more than ten years and that her prior service should be regularized. The second respondent issued Ext.R2(h) dated 23.04.2022, conceding that she had about 2029 days of service but denying regularization and stating that the period would be credited only when a fresh appointment process, including an interview, is undertaken. The petitioner contends that she falls within the Umadevi doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court, specifically that regularization can be a one-time measure and that there is no vested right to regularization, and that her continuous service warrants relief. The respondents insist there is no vested right to regularization, as she was appointed provisionally and no regular appointment process had been pursued from 2010 to 2021; the process is underway and will include an interview. The court held that regularization cannot be granted as a matter of right but granted liberty to apply in the upcoming recruitment process within two weeks, with credit for prior service and, if eligible for a vacancy, an appointment without undue delay.
R.C.Rev. Nos.124, 126, 127, 128 & 134 of 2016 Common landlords-petitioners filed five Rent Control Revision petitions in Thiruvananthapuram challenging orders of eviction under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Control Court dismissed the petitions for eviction on grounds including lack of valid notice under Section 11(2)(b), insufficient proof of arrears, and non-fulfillment of bonafide reconstruction prerequisites. The Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals, following the trial court's conclusions. The petitioners challenged these rulings in revision under Section 20 of the Act. The High Court, deciding common questions across all five revisions, held that the petitioners had established bonafide reconstruction of the displaced building and that the plan and permit Ext A6 and Ext A7 evidenced the landlord's ability to rebuild. It discussed relevant precedents clarifying the scope of Section 11(4)(iv), the proper interpretation of Section 15's bar, and the revisional power under Section 20, distinguishing it from a second appeal. The court found that though the earlier petitions were dismissed for default, Section 15 did not bar these petitions, and that the petitions could proceed. It allowed the revisions, directing eviction and granting possession to petitioners, with a time-bound reconstruction plan and provisos ensuring tenant space in the new building.
MACA 616/2016 & MACA 520/2016 This Motor Accident Claims Appeal arises from OP(MV) 1036/2011 before the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-IV, Pathanamthitta, by Chandran Pillai for injuries due to a road accident dated 04.08.2011 involving a car and a lorry. The car (insured by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd) allegedly stopped abruptly and its door opened, causing the scooter rider to be thrown onto the road, where a lorry (insured by New India Assurance Co. Ltd) ran over his leg, resulting in severe injuries. The Tribunal held both drivers negligent and apportioned liability equally between the insurers, and awarded ₹26,95,915 as compensation, to be paid in equal shares in respect of the two insured vehicles. The insurers challenged the quantum, raising multiple contentions: (i) the disability assessment; (ii) the rate and basis of future prospects; (iii) awards under heads like loss of amenities, loss of enjoyment of life, and future medical treatment; and (iv) the effect of awarding compensation for loss of earnings. The High Court, after examining the record and authorities, held that the claimant’s amputation above the knee, given his occupation as a heavy vehicle driver, justifies 100% functional disability. It disallowed the 15% future prospects and substituted 10%, allowed ₹2,00,000 for future treatment, and reduced the loss of earnings to one year, while deleting part of the loss of enjoyment award. The result was a revised total of ₹24,81,515, with directions to deposit within three months after adjusting sums already deposited. The appeals are allowed to the extent of quantum.
Golden Traders, a registered GST dealer, faced enforcement action after areca nuts were intercepted during transit. The respondent issued show-cause notices under Section 130 of the CGST Act, read with IGST Act, alleging that the goods and conveyance could be confiscated and duties/penalties imposed. The petitioner challenged Ext. P9 (a Form GST MOV-10 show-cause notice) as illegal and unwarranted, arguing the action was high-handed and that it had a valid defense to the allegations. The Special Government Pleader argued that Ext. P9 is merely a show-cause notice and not a decision; recourse to Article 226 was not warranted, as Section 130 proceedings are in rem and do not bestow title to the goods before adjudication. The Court recognized the tension: while Ext. P9 need not be quashed at this stage, the interim release of goods pending adjudication is possible under Section 130(2) as a two-stage release mechanism to protect revenue and avoid irreparable loss to the petitioner. Relying on Balakrishnan (State Tax Officer v. Balakrishnan) and distinguishing Lexus Exports (P) Ltd., the Court held that interim release is permissible subject to conditions and deposit. The petition was disposed with an order directing release on payment of Rs. 1,00,000 and a bond for the balance, pending adjudication.
This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Misc Case (CRL.MC No. 2745 of 2022) filed by six accused persons challenging the further proceedings in Crime No.978/2021 of Tirurangadi Police Station, now pending as SC No.468/2022 before the Additional Sessions Court-II, Manjeri. The petition asserts that the dispute with the de facto complainant is private and has been resolved by mutual terms, evidenced by Annexure-III, with the 1st respondent declaring no subsisting grievances and no objection to quashing. Annexures I and II contain the FIR and the final report, respectively. The offences alleged include IPC sections 341, 323, 324, and 308 r/w 34; a related crime 125/2022 is noted. The SHO’s corroboration of the settlement is cited. The court observes the private nature of the dispute, the lack of serious injuries in relation to the 308 IPC charge, and the bleak prospects of successful prosecution. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012(4)KLT 108), the court invokes its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to give effect to the mutual terms. The petition is allowed; all further proceedings in Annexure-II (final report) and SC No.468/2022 before the ASJ, Manjeri, are quashed, including related proceedings in Crime No.125/2022.
This is a Rent Control Revision Petition under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, filed in the Kerala High Court by the revision petitioners, Sreedharan K. Nair and Ummer Koya, challenging eviction orders against them in respect of the petition schedule shop room at Kozhikode. The Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff-II) had, on 18.02.2016, ordered eviction on grounds including arrears of rent from November 2006 at Rs. 1,600 per month, alleged sub-letting by the tenants to the second petitioner, and a bona fide need of the landlord’s elder son to start a palm oil business in the shop. In the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the eviction order was maintained. The High Court, evaluating the maintainability of eviction when a co-owner seeks possession and considering the release deed dated 10.05.2013 transferring the entire property to the landlord, held that such eviction petition is maintainable under the proviso framework of Section 11(3). The Court noted that the second petitioner was occupying the premises and treated this as sub-letting, thereby supporting eviction under Section 11(4)(i). While upholding the eviction, the Court dismissed the revision petition but granted six months’ time to surrender possession, with conditions including payment of arrears and prohibition on inducting third parties. The judgment cites several precedents on bona fide need, sub-letting, and burden of proof, emphasizing substantive safeguards against mere pretext in eviction proceedings.
The writ petition, filed as W.P.(C.) No.13110 of 2023 before the High Court of Kerala, challenges Ext.P3 show cause notice issued by the first respondent under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, for purported overload in the petitioner’s goods carriage. The petitioner, a professional driver holding Heavy Driving License No. KL-08-2014 0003268 (valid until 2026), argues that there is no factual or legal basis to suspend or revoke his license, since Section 19 of the Act does not empower the Licensing Authority to suspend for alleged violations without due process. He asserts the respondents lack territorial jurisdiction and that the record does not establish a violation; he notes the absence of an e-challan and questions the solitary reliance on a weighment certificate. Respondents contend that the licensee’s overload endangers public safety, justifying action under Section 19 read with Rule 21(8) of the CMVR, 1989; they rely on the weighment certificate and the precautionary framework to revoke the license for nuisance or danger to the public. The Court finds no arbitrariness in issuing Ext.P3 but confines itself to upholding the petition to the extent of directing consideration of Ext.P3 after hearing the petitioner’s Ext.P4 objections, keeping the petition alive without quashing Ext.P3 at this stage. The order notes that the license shall not be revoked until Ext.P3 is finalised. The decision invokes Anoop K.A. v. State of Kerala to emphasize due-process requirements and regulatory caution.
This High Court of Kerala, in MACA No. 318 of 2017, revisits an award passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, arising from a motor vehicle accident on 04.06.2009 which caused the death of Simon Antony at age 43, a welder with monthly earnings around Rs. 10,000. The claimants (wife Marykutty and children Anu, Minnu) sought Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation against the Toyota Qualis vs lorry accident, pressing on the liability of the Qualis driver and the insurer. The insurer contends there was no conclusive evidence of the Qualis driver’s negligence and that the lorry driver was unidentified; the police filed a final UN report exonerating the vehicle identified as the lorry’s driver. The Tribunal found the Qualis driver negligent and the insurer liable, with a quantum of Rs. 16,30,826, plus interest. On appeal, learned counsel for the insurer argues that the negligence finding is not legally sustainable, relying on Pazhaniammal’s principle; respondents rely on PW1’s testimony and police records. The High Court, while acknowledging Pazhaniammal, emphasizes evaluating evidence in light of direct evidence, not merely police reports. It allows re-assessment of compensation for income, future prospects, and various heads, applying modern SC standards, and ultimately revises the total compensation to Rs. 14,31,026, directing deposit within three months with the Tribunal’s rate of interest and costs.
MACA.No.1512/15 & 1039/2013 This Kerala High Court appeal arises from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in OP(MV)662/2011 concerning the death of Mercy Mathew, who died as a paid passenger in a bus accident in 2010. The Tribunal held the bus driver negligent and also attributed 30% liability to a parked lorry, with 70% liability on the bus driver’s insurer (and 30% on the lorry’s insurer). The legal heirs (the appellants in MACA 1512/2015) challenged the quantum of compensation, while Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Cholamandalam General Insurance Co. Ltd. challenged the liability and some heads of damages. The High Court, after noting prior related decisions (including a separate MACA 2761/2014) and evaluating the evidence, modified several heads of compensation. It accepted the Tribunal’s note that the deceased’s notional income was Rs.25,000 for 2010-2011, but held that future prospects of 10% should be added to income for dependency calculations. Relying on Sarla Varma and Pranay Sethi line of authorities, the Court directed a deduction of one third for personal expenses (instead of one fourth), and corrected several heads of compensation: Loss of Consortium increased to Rs.1,60,000; Loss of Dependency revised to Rs.24,20,000; Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000; Loss of Estate Rs.15,000. It also held that Pain and Suffering and Loss of Love and Affection were not permissible under the guiding precedents (Pranay Sethi and Satinder Kaur). The court ordered payment with interest at 7.5% per annum and directed deduction of 835 days’ delay in filing the appeal, along with proportionate costs. The appeals were disposed of in part with enhanced/modified compensation payable by the insurers in the proportions fixed by the Tribunal.
