Nelson, aged 65, petitioner in CRL.MC No.4325/2023, seeks quashing under Section 482 CrPC of proceedings in CC No.474/2022 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences charged: 294(b), 323, and 506(ii) IPC, arising from an incident on 14.08.2022 where the petitioner allegedly threatened and assaulted the de facto complainant during a dispute about soil removal from a neighborhood property. The petitioner contends that the dispute has been amicably settled, supported by Annexure-2 (affidavit of the 2nd respondent) and requests termination of proceedings to restore tranquility. The investigating officer was directed to verify the genuineness of the settlement and whether the petitioner has any antecedents or impediments to quashing. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about relying solely on a settlement to invoke inherent powers under 482 CrPC. The High Court examines the law governing quashing of non-compoundable offences in the light of Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh; Narinder Singh; Parbatbhai Aahir; etc.), as summarised in State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan, and clarifies that 482 CrPC quashing is permissible when the dispute is private/non-serious and settled, but not for heinous offences or offences under special statutes (e.g., IPC Sec.307; Arms Act) or public servant offences. On evaluating the gravity, antecedents, and the amicable settlement, the court allows the petition and quashes the final report and CC proceedings, holding that continuing prosecution would not advance public interest and would frustrate ends of justice. The order closes with the quashment of all further proceedings in CC No.474/2022 and related reports.
WP(C) Nos. 15751/2020, 24964/2020, 25007/2020 These connected writ petitions concern Foreign Medical Graduates seeking permanent registration under Section 25(4) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 after qualifying abroad. The petitioners—Jetly Joseph, Shibilu Shamsudeen and Purnima Rani Das—completed MBBS and related training partly overseas, obtained Eligibility Certificates, cleared Screening Tests, and sought registration in India after returning. The Kerala State Council of Modern Medicine had pressed a stand that such courses are off-campus and thus not eligible for permanent registration. The petitions trace a legislative and doctrinal development: W.P.(C) 2344/2020 in this Court granted declarations in the students’ favour, an appeal (W.A.1667/2020) was dismissed, and the Supreme Court, in SLP 7293/2021, affirmed those declarations. The court relies on Sadhiya Siyad v. State of Kerala (2021) and earlier Delhi High Court decisions (Ishan Kaul; Shambhavi Sharma) to interpret the post-amendment framework under Act 34 of 2001; it holds that eligibility certificates are not institution-specific but Student-specific and that a person who qualifies under the amended regime can enroll and appear for the screening test. On this basis, the court allows the petitions, sets aside the impugned orders, and directs permanent registration within two months to the petitioners.
Harikrishnan.C.S, the accused in CC No.205/2019, moved this High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the ongoing prosecution arising from a 2011 incident at Maharaja’s College, Ernakulam, where the accused and others allegedly barged into the Principal’s room, restrained him, and sought readmission for students with alleged criminal backgrounds. The accused faced offences under Sections 143, 147, 342, 294(b) and 506(i) read with Section 149 IPC. The de facto complainant later died; her husband’s widow is arrayed as the 2nd respondent. The petitioner contends that the dispute has since been amicably settled and the parties do not wish to pursue the prosecution; an affidavit supports this position. The Public Prosecutor, while noting no other serious crimes by the petitioner, cautions against quashing merely on the basis of settlement. The Court reviews the matter in light of the principles laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan. It is held that under Section 482 CrPC, quashing non‑compoundable offences in private/civil disputes is permissible where the entire dispute is settled, provided the offences are not heinous or of a public‑interest nature. After considering the gravity of the offence, the lack of enduring grievances of the complainant, and the amicable settlement, the Court holds that quashing would serve ends of justice and would not adversely impact society. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and further proceedings in CC 205/2019 are quashed.
This writ petition challenges the zoning restrictions for the Kulirmala Bio-park Zone under the Perinthalmanna Zonal Regulations, inhibiting multi-storey construction and directing eco-restoration and related uses. The petitioner, Usman, owns 50.59 ares in Perinthalmanna Taluk and applied for a building permit to develop a gymnasium, auditorium, restaurant, health club and four cottages. The municipality rejected the application (Exhibit P3) on the ground that the Bio-park Zone permits only single-storey structures and is reserved for eco-restoration, open-air theatre, museums, planetariums, exhibitions and bio-reserve, with future development subject to DPR and detailed plans approved by the Chief Town Planner. The petitioner contends that the Bio-park project has not been implemented and argues for construction under the Master Plan and Zonal Regulations, asserting that the regulations were not implemented and that variation to the Master Plan should be permissible. The 4th respondent’s counter reiterates the single-storey limitation. The court notes the Master Plan was notified in 2018 and there is no compulsory acquisition contemplated. The petitioner is advised that if variation is sought, the proper route is to approach the Government under Section 50(3) of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016, with due notice and procedure. The court directs consideration of the variation and permits the petitioner to file a modified application, disposing of the petition accordingly.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal revision petition by XXX challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Court (For the trial of cases relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence against Women & Children), Ernakulam, which discharged the petitioner under Section 227 Cr.P.C. after a final report alleged offences under the POCSO Act (Sections 10 r/w 9(n), 14 r/w 13(b), 15), IT Act (Section 67B(a)(b)(c)) and JJ Act (Section 75). The two-minute video in which the petitioner’s 14-year-old son and 8-year-old daughter participated in body painting on her semi-nude torso led to a police complaint and a case accusing exploitation of children for sexual gratification. The Court below held there were grounds to presume the petitioner’s involvement in the offences, justifying denial of discharge. The Kerala High Court, per Hon’ble Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, set aside the impugned order, discharged the petitioner, and allowed the revision petition. The judge held that the acts were artistic and political expression aimed at challenging double standards on female nudity, and that there was no sexual intent or use of children in any sexual act. The court emphasized bodily autonomy as a facet of privacy and freedom of expression, and relied on constitutional rights (Articles 19(1)(a) and 21) and a line of obscenity jurisprudence to conclude that the video was neither obscene nor indecent. The final decision protected bodily autonomy and rejected the charges, at least at the discharge stage.
This is a writ petition under Article 226 by Kuttan Unnithan, the holder of the kuthaka right to sell flower garlands at Chettikulangara Devi Temple for the year 2022-23, challenging the refund of Rs. 2,91,550 deposited as earnest money for the 2019-20 auction and seeking mandamus for refund with 12% interest from 18.03.2022. The petition traces a conduct of delay by the Travancore Devaswom Board in disposing Ext.P5 representation and cites a prior order in W.P.(C)No.21302 of 2021 (11.10.2021) directing remittance of Rs.3.50 lakh and stay of coercive steps, with subsequent extensions conditioned on payment of 50% of the balance. The Respondents argue the petitioner defaulted on Rs.1,75,000 due by 30.09.2020 with interest, and that waiver is not legally warranted. The Court surveys provisions of the Travancore Devaswom Board Act, 1950 and related statutes, along with precedents on fiduciary duties and guardianship of temple properties (including the trustee’s duty not to profit from the trust and the doctrine of parents patriae). It ultimately holds the petitioner not entitled to waiver, directing adjustment of the earnest money against outstanding balances for 2021-22 and 2022-23, recovery with 18% interest, and, if needed, termination and blacklisting, with an enquiry into conduct of responsible officers to be completed within three months. The petition is disposed of with these directions.
WP(C) Nos. 290 of 2020; 10664 of 2019; 12046 of 2021; 28179 of 2022; 40219 of 2022; 40849 of 2022; 40889 of 2022; 40953 of 2022 This common judgment of the Kerala High Court, rendered by Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan on 23 February 2023, disposes eight connected writ petitions concerning Kadambur Higher Secondary School (Kannur). The manager-petitioner, P. Muralidharan, challenges the Department of General Education’s staff-fixation measures and the shift of the Higher Secondary section to a new building. Central to the dispute is Ext. P17, a staff-fixation order that reduced divisions for the HSS, alleged to have been issued without full opportunity and in contravention of governing rules. Petitioners rely on Ext. P25 (a DGE directive) showing permission to conduct Higher Secondary classes in the new building from 2014-15, and argue that the department was aware of the shifting and that Ext. P17 became redundant. The respondents maintain Ext. P17 as valid, citing irregularities in staff fixation to be addressed under existing rules and super-check mechanisms. The court takes note of the extensive inspections and an independent Commissioner’s report, which praised the school’s facilities and noted staff concerns. Finding that Ext. P25 renders Ext. P17 redundant, the court quashes Ext. P17 and restores Ext. P2, while directing reconsideration of appointments and staff-fixations in light of the judgment. The order emphasizes safeguarding students’ education, urging pragmatic administrative action, and provides timelines for authorities to resolve the issues in two months.
This Regular Second Appeal (RSA No. 117 of 2023) before the Kerala High Court arises from a partition suit (O.S. No. 328 of 2015) and its subsequent decrees in A.S. No. 2 of 2019. The trial court held that the plaint schedule property, purchased jointly by the plaintiff and defendant under Jenm Assignment Deed No. 3194/1985, should be partitioned in the ratio 6/15 for the plaintiff and 9/15 for the defendant, based on the evidence on record, including Exts. A1–A2 (title documents) and Exts. B1–B3 (defendant’s documents and survey sketch). The Appellate Court reversed, ordering equal partition (1/2 share each), noting the absence of conclusive evidence to prove a 9:6 contributed purchase money. The defendant contended that Ext. B2 (an agreement executed after Ext. A1) binds the parties to the 9:6 share per Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, supported by several precedents. The plaintiff argued Ext. B2 is not a reliable record of the purchase funds and that Ext. A1/A2 show joint ownership without specifying unequal contributions. The High Court ultimately upheld the Appellate Court’s equal partition reasoning, noting the lack of admissible evidence to establish the 9:6 ratio and applying Section 45 in its third part’s presumption of equal rights in the absence of evidence. The RSA is dismissed, and the property is to be partitioned equally between the parties.
This Original Petition (O.P.(C).No.2133/2021) filed under Article 227 read with Section 151 CPC challenges an order dated 27-08-2021 in O.S. No.145/2019 and related proceedings before the II Addl. Sub Court, Kozhikode, wherein the plaintiff-plaintiff seeks damages for malicious prosecution against the petitioner. The petitioner, described as the defendant in the suit, contends that the suit is not maintainable for reasons including non-joinder of necessary parties (notably the Calicut Kasba Police SHO) and lack of territorial jurisdiction since the criminal acts and investigations spanned multiple jurisdictions. He argues that issues were framed in violation of Order XIV Rule 3 CPC and that there is no cause of action; he asserts the court lacks jurisdiction and that the matter involves improper framing and procedural defects. The respondent-plaintiff asserts relief for damages for malicious prosecution and maintains the petitioner initiated and sustained the criminal proceedings; he is the master of the litigation and may decide who should be made a party. The court undertakes a detailed analysis of the law of malicious prosecution, including who qualifies as a prosecutor, drawing on Kunhukutty Sahib, Subramanya Bhatta, and Kunhikannan Nambiar to explain that a defendant may set the criminal law in motion or actively participate in the prosecution, even without filing a complaint. It ultimately disposes of the petition by confirming the Sub Court’s order and allows cure of an unnumbered IA (Ext.P35) within seven days, while noting that some authorities are not applicable to this case. The judgment reiterates the scope of Article 227 and natural justice considerations in challenging the proceedings at the threshold.
Criminal Appeal No. 550 of 2021 Gopi, aged 56, was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC by the Additional Sessions Court-III, Mavelikkara, for allegedly striking the deceased with a casuarina rod during a scuffle in a waiting shed. The High Court of Kerala, in Criminal Appeal No.550 of 2021, finally heard on 31.07.2023 and delivered judgment on 09.08.2023, allowed the appeal in part. The prosecution relied on eyewitness accounts of PW1 and PW2, recovered MO1 casuarina rod, MO4 blood-stained shirt, and forensic blood-group evidence linking blood on the shirt and rod to the deceased (blood group 'O'). Post-mortem findings showed blunt-force injuries to the face and lower limbs causing death. The defence challenged the reliability of the eyewitnesses and argued that MO1’s discovery was not admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act since the weapon was found in a public place, and that the injuries were not sufficient to constitute murder, suggesting culpable homicide not amounting to murder. While the court found PW1 and PW2’s credibility questionable, it held that there was a scuffle and that the accused used the casuarina rod to inflict injuries leading to death. Applying the three-stage analysis for murder versus culpable homicide, the court converted the conviction to Part-I of Section 304 IPC, and treated the period already served as sufficient for the offence. The result is a partial success for the appellant with a modified conviction and no additional imprisonment mandated.
R.C.Rev.No.455 of 2019; R.C.Rev.No.461 of 2019; R.C.Rev.No.462 of 2019; R.C.Rev.No.463 of 2019 These are four revision petitions filed under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, challenging a common judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Irinjalakuda, dated 21 December 2018, and the Rent Control Court’s orders dated 31 March 2016 fixing fair rent for petition schedule shop rooms. The landlord sought to restore a Rs. 10 per sq ft fair rent with a 10% two‑yearly increase, arguing that the shops are in a locality of substantial commercial importance and are in proximity to institutions, which justifies a higher rent. The respondents contended that the relationship is tenancy, supported by deeds and conduct; the landlord’s initial claim that the arrangements were licenses was superseded by a finding of tenancy. The matter centers on whether fair rent should reflect market conditions and Edgar Ferus guidelines. The Court emphasizes that fair rent must follow Edgar Ferus guidelines, considering inflation, variations in the cost of living, construction costs, land value, convenience/amenities, and proximity to places of public importance, along with comparable local rents. It also holds that an agreed rent between parties has limited bearing on the fair rent. The court reverses the Appellate Authority and restores the Rent Control Court’s finding of Rs.10 per sq ft with a 10% hike, allowing the revisions.
This is a Kerala High Court supervisory petition under Article 227 challenging two Family Court orders in OP 1153/2019, Ernakulam, which granted IA Nos. 2853/2021 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside an ex parte divorce decree dated 06.02.2020, and IA No. 2854/2021 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a delay of 493 days. The underlying petition for divorce was filed by the respondent-husband under Section 2(vii)(a) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939, resulting in an ex parte decree. The petitioner contends that the Family Court wrongly allowed the interlocutory applications on grounds lacking satisfactory justification for condonation of delay, arguing that there was no valid reason to set aside the ex parte decree. The respondent contends that the Family Court adequately considered explanations and evidence (Exs. P3, P3A, P4, P4A, P5, P6) and exercised discretion properly, relying on liberal principles of condonation and balancing justice against prejudice. The High Court, citing Esha Bhattacharjee and Katiji principles, reviews the liberal approach to delay, distinguishing between inordinate delay and short delays, and ultimately relies on the Cognizance decision to exclude certain COVID-era periods from delay calculations. It holds that the actual delay is only 9 days, and finds no ground to interfere with the Family Court’s orders. The petition is dismissed, and the Family Court orders stand.
This is a Kerala High Court writ petition (W.P.(C) No.22547 of 2021) by Sanil Kumar.P, who claims tenancy and possession of a building (Door No. 9/1510) belonging to the Iritty Municipality and used for an ice-cream parlour and snack shop named “Chocolate Cool & Hot.” He asserts tenancy since 5 November 2012 at a daily rent of Rs. 250 and alleges eviction attempts by the 3rd respondent, with the 1st and 2nd respondents (the Municipality) conspiring in denying renewal of a business licence on grounds that the petitioner did not produce a consent letter from the landlord. The renewal/first-time licensing controversy arises under Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994, and is guided by the Supreme Court’s Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum (2016) which held that consent is required for first-time licensing but not for renewal during tenancy, where a valid tenancy exists. The petitioner admits the licence was issued in the 3rd respondent’s name even before the tenancy and has sought to continue the business under that arrangement. The Civil Court has granted interim injunction in a related suit (OS No. 242/2021). Respondents dispute tenancy, relying on Commission findings that the petitioner possessed the premises, and contend Ext.P5 is a fresh application, not a renewal. The High Court disposes by directing a fresh consideration of Ext.P5 in light of Sudhakaran, while recognizing the civil suit’s ongoing challenge to tenancy and asking the petitioner to establish tenancy before renewal."
MACA No. 4077 of 2017 & CO No. 153 of 2018 This Kerala High Court judgment arises from an appeal by the New India Assurance Company challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery award in OP(MV) No. 79/2010 and the cross-objections by the claimants, P.P. Joy, Anoop Joy and Anila Joy, seeking enhanced compensation. The accident occurred on 20.12.2009 when a bus driven rashly by the first respondent collided with the car carrying Molly, resulting in her death. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 21,86,100 in total compensation to the legal heirs who sought higher relief. The insurer argued primarily that the Tribunal erred in applying a multiplier of 11 for loss of dependency given the deceased’s age and expected retirement, and that the claim for a split multiplier (5+6) should apply in view of the deceased’s anticipated retirement. It also contested several conventional heads of compensation, alleging miscalculation. The claimants contended the award was inadequate and pressed for higher sums under heads like funeral expenses, loss of estate, pain and suffering, and especially loss of consortium and love/affection. The court examined the evidence (Exts A1–A10, no oral evidence) and relied on Pranay Sethi for conventional heads, while incorporating the recent R. Valli decision to reject the split multiplier. It reduced several heads, allowed refunds, and directed the insurer to deposit Rs.1,40,000 with interest within two months, resulting in partial success for the insurer and dismissal of the cross-objections.
This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenges Ext.P7, an order passed by the Labour Court, Kollam under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The 2nd respondent, an Office Assistant in the petitioner’s establishment, was suspended on 10.06.1993 and later retrenched with retrospective effect following a domestic inquiry found to be vitiated. The Labour Court’s initial and subsequent awards directed reinstatement with back wages but did not grant other attendant benefits. Ext.P2 (2009) partially allowed the writ petition, enhancing back wages, and the matter has traversed multiple rounds up to Ext.P7 in 2016, which the petitioner challenges. The petitioner contends the establishment was effectively closed from 10.02.2004 under RBI Act, Section 45-S, and therefore back wages beyond that date are unsustainable; it also argues about the date from which back wages should be computed (12.05.2006 enunciated by Rule 26A and Section 17A), and relies on a Full Bench decision (N. Mahalingam) regarding Section 17B. The Court examines the Labour Court’s power to implement an existing award under Section 33C(2), its publication/enforceability mechanics, and the proper computation of back wages. The judgment ultimately modifies Ext.P7, fixing the total amount due and directing joint and several liability with 12% interest, while disposing of the petition with no costs.
WP(C) No. 8221 of 2020; WP(C) No. 18052 of 2022; WP(C) No. 13899 of 2022 This judgment consolidates three writ petitions challenging the transfer of vehicle ownership and permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the wake of a will and a compromise decree. Padmanabhan, father of Binoy, died in 2018 leaving two buses to Sunil Kumar C.P. A civil suit OS 144/2018 ended in a compromise decree on 29.01.2019, with other legal heirs not objecting to the permits’ transfer to Sunil Kumar; RTA Thrissur passed an order on 05.09.2019 to transfer the permits, which the petitioners contend reflected a binding sequence that should also allow transfer of ownership once the final decree is drawn. In 2020, RTA rejected transfer of ownership of the two vehicles, citing the preliminary decree and the ongoing partition. The petitioners argue that once permits are transferred, ownership should follow as a natural consequence, especially since the heirs did not object to the permits transfer. The respondents counter that ownership cannot be transferred pending the final decree and that Ext.P3 communications were improper. The court analyzes Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 178 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, and holds that ownership transfer cannot be effected until the final decree is drawn, though permits may be transferred per Section 82. Ext.P3 communications are quashed, and a stay on ownership transfer is imposed until the final decree; ownership rights will vest as per the final decree and applicable law.
The petitioner, K.C.U. Raja, the hereditary trustee (Zamorin) of Sree Valayanad Bhagavathi Temple, filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging Ext.P23, an order dated 16.04.2022 passed by the 1st respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, removing him from the hereditary trusteeship under Section 45 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. The petitioner contends that Ext.P23 was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice, arguing that he was not given a fair opportunity to present his case before the Commissioner. He also points to pendency of W.P.(C) No.27286 of 2021 challenging Ext.P21 common order in the same proceedings, arguing that Ext.P23 should be barred until that matter is resolved. Relying on Magadh Sugar and Energy Limited v. State of Bihar, he contends that a writ petition under Article 226 may be used to challenge such orders. The respondents counter that Ext.P23 is a statutory order under the HR&CE Act and must be challenged under Sub-section (5) of Section 45 before the 3rd respondent, State, and that the statutory remedy is efficacious. The Vacation Bench stayed Ext.P23 for two months, and the court ultimately disposes the petition with directions, urging the petitioner to pursue a statutory appeal under Section 45(5) before the 3rd respondent, with interim relief to be decided on a specified timeline, while continuing an interim stay for a limited period.
The appellant, Joshy K.M., a permanently employed Fireman with the Cochin Port Trust, sustained serious injuries in a road traffic accident on 19.04.2008 when his motorcycle KL-7/AK-4888 was hit by a bus driven by the second respondent. He filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 4,11,100. The Tribunal/Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, assessed liability and allowed part of the petition, awarding Rs. 1,62,603 with costs and interest, and referred the claimant to a Medical Board (Ext.X1) which later certified a permanent partial disability of 30% due to cervical spine injury. The insurer (third respondent) accepted the insurance, while the owner (first respondent) contested liability. The Tribunal rejected Ext.X1’s 30% disability after observing the claimant and concluded a 10% disability, without awarding compensation for disability loss. The appellant appealed, arguing that the disability certification should be respected per Rajkumar v. Ajayakumar and Union of India v. Talwinder Singh, and that the claim should be evaluated with appropriate notional income and multiplier. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, recognizing Ext.X1’s 30% disability, applying a split multiplier for disability beyond superannuation, proceeding to award Rs.4,05,000 for loss due to disability, with interest and costs, and directing deposit before the Tribunal within 60 days. The insurer and tribunal are to disburse accordingly.
This Regular Second Appeal (RSA No. 427 of 2018) is heard by a single Judge of the Kerala High Court, challenging a decree for eviction and damages from the plaint schedule property in favor of Tali Devaswom. The trial court had decreed eviction against the defendant tenant at Rs. 475 per month as monthly rent with 12% interest, and the First Appellate Court affirmed. The temple and its properties originally belonged to Thelepurath Tharawad; after a 2007 order under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, the property became a sub-temple of the Tali Devaswom and the tenancy continued. The defendant had occupied since 1984 on a monthly tenancy, with a later rent increase. A key issue is whether the Rent Control Act applies: the Government notification under Section 25(1)-(2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, G.O. MS 59/1993, exempt temples and Devaswoms from Act 2 of 1965, shifting eviction to general law under the Transfer of Property Act (Sections 106, 111, and 113). The appellant also argued a possible permanent tenancy and waiver of notice under Section 113 TP Act. The High Court found that exemption applies, the tenancy is terminable under 106 TP Act, and there is no substantial question of law, upholding the concurrent judgments. The appeal is dismissed in limine with no costs.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA No. 430 of 2011) heard by the Kerala High Court, challenging an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, in OP(MV) No.1432/2001. The appellant sustained serious injuries in a road accident on 02.09.1995 while riding a motorcycle (KL-09-9875) when another motorcycle (KL-9-B7834) allegedly ridden by the first respondent collided with him. The Tribunal quantified the compensation and awarded Rs. 49,635 with interest and costs, holding the third respondent insurer liable to indemnify the first respondent’s liability. The appellant contends that the compensation was inappropriately low, particularly in light of his occupation as an Electronic Engineer running his own business and notional income fixed at Rs. 2,250 per month. He relies on Exts A1–A7 to support his claims. The respondents denied liability on the grounds of negligence by the appellant and disputed the quantum, but did not adduce evidence to refute the petition’s averments. The High Court, citing Chameli Devi v. Jivrail Mian, re-determined the notional monthly income at Rs. 5,000 for 1995 and augmented the award, resulting in a total enhanced compensation of Rs. 33,750, with 7.5% interest and costs, to be deposited by the insurer and disbursed after deposit.
