CRL.A NO. 547 OF 2017; CRL.A NO. 608 OF 2017; CRL.A NO. 612 OF 2017 This judgment disposes of three criminal appeals arising from S.C. No. 341/2016 pending in the Additional Sessions Court, Mavelikkara, challenging convictions for offences under Sections 341, 326 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The three appellants—Manoj (3rd accused), Rajeev (2nd accused) and Anoop Kumar (1st accused)—were found guilty of planning and executing a deadly assault on Murali Nair at a petrol pump in Meleppady, Ala, on 18 February 2016. The prosecution alleged that the attackers, acting in concert, first engaged in a confrontation with petrol pump staff over queuing and filling arrangements, and then blocked the victim’s motorbike, with the second accused calling for killing while the first and third assaulted Murali with an iron pipe, causing fatal head injuries. Murali died on 25 February 2016. The trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment for murder (302 IPC) with fines, and imposed additional terms for 326 and 341 IPC, though the terms were to run concurrently. The Kerala High Court partly allowed the appeals: it upheld the 302 and 341 convictions but set aside the 326 IPC conviction on the ground that sentencing for multiple offences would constitute double punishment under Section 71 IPC. It accepted testimony from prosecution witnesses (including relatives of the deceased) and relied on medical and forensic evidence linking MO3 to the injuries, while noting three earlier incidents at the petrol pump that supported a common design. The appeals were thus partly allowed.
The High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, heard Bail Application No.1343 of 2024 under Section 438 CrPC concerning Crime No.45/2024 registered at Chokli Police Station, Kannur, involving three petitioners: Rijesh P P, Athul M @ Chicku, and Sandeep T. The State opposing bail argued the offence alleged is serious, arising from a common intention with others to form an unlawful assembly and assault the de facto complainant with a firewood and a sharp iron object, injuring him on the head. The FIR/accident register confirms injuries; the first accused had been granted bail; petitioners seek parity. The petitioners claim innocence, improper implicaton, and that custodial interrogation is unnecessary; they offer to comply with strict conditions. The Public Prosecutor counters, asserting that the petitioners cannot claim parity with the first accused and that their custodial interrogation is essential for recovery and investigation. The court referenced Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra for the proposition that anticipatory bail guidelines are not rigid and must be based on facts and circumstances, and Sibbia for discretionary exercise of power. It also cited Jai Prakash Singh to emphasize bail is extraordinary and must be granted in exceptional cases only. After evaluating the preliminary record and the nature of the alleged offences, the court concludes that there are no exceptional grounds for pre-arrest bail and dismisses the application, directing surrender within ten days and provision for a fresh bail petition on surrender.
B.A. Nos.10001/2023 and 10006/2023 These are two anticipatory bail petitions under Section 438 CrPC, consolidated before the Kerala High Court. Ratheesh A., chairman of Thiruvithamkoor Nidhi Ltd., stands accused in Crime Nos. 1564/2022 (Town East, Thrissur) and 977/2022 (Town West, Thrissur) for offences under IPC Sections 406 and 420 read with 34, and under the BUDS Act, 2019 (Sections 3 with 21, 4 with 22, 5 with 23). The petitions seek pre-arrest bail. The prosecution alleges that the company collected deposits from the public promising 12% monthly interest; deposits were not returned, and interest not paid. The petitioner contends innocence, no antecedents, non-attractivity of BUDS Act, willingness to cooperate, and requests stringent conditions. The Public Prosecutors oppose bail citing multiple similar cases against him, ongoing investigation, need for custodial interrogation, and potential tampering with evidence. The Court cites Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and the Sibbia framework, listing factors to consider in anticipatory bail: nature of accusation, antecedents, likelihood to flee, likelihood to repeat offences, impact on large groups, and danger of over-involvement of Section 34/149; and emphasises discretion should be exercised with care, not as a rule. It concludes that the petitioner does not present exceptional circumstances; bail applications are dismissed. However, it directs surrender within 10 days for possible merits-based reconsideration; otherwise arrest may proceed.
RCRev. Nos. 34 of 2024; RCRev. Nos. 35 of 2024 The High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, in two Rent Control Revisions (RCRev Nos. 34 and 35 of 2024), arises from orders in R.C.P Nos. 70–71 of 2016 and the corresponding appellate appeals. The landlord sought eviction under Section 11(3) on bona fide need to use the entire ground and first floors of the three-storied Mammu Shopping Complex for conducting a hotel business, while the tenants contended that the first proviso to Section 11(3) should apply since the landlord possessed other vacant premises and there were special circumstances. The Rent Control Court granted eviction under Section 11(3), deeming the need bona fide and holding that the first proviso did not apply; eviction under Section 11(4)(v) was declined for other petitions. The Rent Control Appellate Authority affirmed the eviction. The tenant challenged the common order and judgment in these revisional petitions before the High Court, arguing primarily about the applicability of the first proviso to Section 11(3). The Court, after considering settled precedents on bona fide need, availability of other buildings, and the scope of revisional power, concluded that the first proviso to Section 11(3) does not apply to the facts, and that the landlord’s need remains bona fide. Ultimately, the Revisional Court dismissed the revisions but granted five months’ time to vacate with conditions, including affidavits, arrears deposit, and licensing commitments, failing which the eviction order would be executable.
This is a criminal appeal by Chandran alias Vinod Chandran against a judgment convicting him of murder (302 IPC) and robbery (397 IPC) and sentencing him to life imprisonment with a fine, plus an additional sentence for the related offence. The trial court framed charges under Sections 397 and 302 IPC, examined 28 witnesses, and relied on circumstantial evidence to hold that the accused hit the deceased with an iron pipe while he slept on a bench at Payyanur Railway Station, resulting in death, and also stole the bag and belongings. The High Court, while acknowledging the circumstantial nature of the evidence, found serious gaps in the sequence of events and doubted the inference that the theft and the homicide occurred in a single transaction. The court noted that the body was found on the railway track between a platform and the rail and that the prosecution failed to show a direct link between the theft from the waiting room and the death at the station. Citing Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) to limit reliance on Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, the court held that the murder charge could not be established beyond reasonable doubt on the record and thus altered the conviction to a lesser offence. The bench ultimately remitted the sentence to 379 IPC with a reduced term, while setting aside the 302 and 397 convictions.
This is a criminal appeal (CRL.A.1314 of 2016) from the judgment in SC No.314 of 2014 of the Additional Sessions Court – I, Kalpetta, convicting three accused of offences including conspiracy to murder, murder, and robbery with weapons, under IPC sections 120B, 449, 302, 392 and 201 read with 34. The victim, Chinnamma, aged 68, lived alone and was involved in church activities; she was found murdered in her home on the night of 12–13 September 2014. The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence, including several witnesses, recovered articles, seizure of jewelry and cards, forensics, and the testimony of experts, linking the accused to the crime. The Sessions Court convicted accused 1 and 3 and sentenced them to life imprisonment among other penalties, while also convicting all accused under section 120B. The appellants argued that there was no direct evidence and that the circumstantial chain was not complete, questioned the admissibility and weighting of forensic hair analysis, and disputed the alleged criminal conspiracy and involvement of the third accused. The High Court examined the five-circumstantial-evidence tests, the autopsy findings, forensic reports, and the inconsistencies in the key-discovery. It affirmed that death was homicide and that there existed a probable chain linking the accused to the crime but varied the culpability among the three. The result is a partial allowance of the appeal: setting aside the 120B conviction and acquitting the third accused of certain counts, while upholding the others against the first and second accused under 449, 302, 392 and 201 read with 34 IPC.
This Kerala High Court motor-claims appeal challenges the order of the II Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod, dated 22.03.2014, which awarded a claimant Rs. 1,07,447 plus interest and costs for damages to her Ford Escort following a 09.04.2009 collision with an Alto insured by the appellant. The Tribunal held the Alto driver negligent and the insurer vicariously liable, even though the driver had been dismissed from the OP(MV) for lack of notice and the Alto owner appeared ex parte. The insurer argued that negligence had not been proved and that Exts. A5–A7 (labour and spare-parts bills) were not formally proved; it also contended that Ext. A4 (survey) undercalculated damages and that depreciation should apply given the vehicle’s age. The respondent claimed that Exts. A1–A3 (FIR, final report, and vehicle inspection) established negligence and that survey and bills supported quantum, with the Tribunal performing a value-judgment in a summary, inquisitorial manner. The High Court reminds that MACT proceedings are summary and not adversarial civil adjudications, and that police charge-sheets can serve as prima facie evidence of negligence. It declines to interfere, upholding the award, vacating interim orders, and directing deposit within one month.
The Kerala High Court, hearing a writ petition (WP(C) No. 25980 of 2014) filed by SEBI CHERIYAN, examines whether the plinth area under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 includes veranda/open areas such as a garage and verandah when computing luxury tax for a residential building. The petitioner, after obtaining plan approvals, constructed a residential building with a plinth area of 262.5 square meters (excluding a car porch and half of the veranda) in Lalam Village. The district authorities assessed luxury tax based on a larger plinth area including 50% of the veranda and the garage, exceeding the exempted limit of 278.7 square meters, leading to a demand (Ext. P3) and a revisional order (Ext. P8) that upheld the assessment. The petitioner challenged these orders on grounds that Sections 5(5) and 6 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 do not clearly define veranda, and that the garage and veranda should be treated in light of precedents such as Subhashchandrababu v. State of Kerala (2006 (2) KLT 189) and Nehrad Naina v. District Collector (2011 (2) KLT 810), which suggest excluding certain appurtenant structures from the plinth area. The respondent State counters that the veranda falls outside the scope of inclusion in plinth area, preserving the tax demand. The court ultimately allows the writ petition to the extent of the garage portion, quashes the challenged orders for that portion, and directs remeasurement within three months, with potential refunds if excess tax was paid. The decision hinges on interpreting the plinth area definition and relying on earlier judicial guidance to exclude garages (and portions of veranda) from the taxable plinth area.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1007 OF 2024 Sumith, the second accused in Crime No. 1657/2023 of Kadakkavoor Police Station, seeks pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC before the High Court of Kerala. The case arises from an incident on 10 December 2023 at KTDC Beer Parlour, Vakkom, where the defacto complainant and his friend were allegedly assaulted; the FIR alleges offences under Sections 341, 427, 294(b), 323, 324 and 307 r/w Section 34 IPC, with the accused said to have acted in concert. The prosecution contends the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted the complainant; the first accused used an iron rod, causing head injuries, while the others are said to have damaged the complainant’s vehicle. The petitioner submits that he is innocent and that there is no specific overt act attributable to him for the offence of attempt to murder (307 IPC); the only overt act alleged against him is damage to the vehicle, and thus custodial interrogation is unnecessary. The court notes that the specific overt act against the petitioner is indeed the vehicle damage, while the 307 act was committed by the first accused. It holds that custodial interrogation is unnecessary and no recovery is to be effected. Consequently, the bail application is allowed, subject to conditions: surrender within ten days, bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties for same amount, cooperation with investigation, no witness intimidation, passport surrender, and compliance with bail terms, with reference to Sushila Aggarwal for post-bail investigative framework.
CRL.A Nos. 527, 528 & 540 of 2017 These appeals arise from judgments of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Alappuzha, convicting the accused in S.C. No. 648 of 2012 for offences including murder under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC, and related offences (Sections 120B and 201 r/w 34 IPC). The appeals were heard together before a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on 8 August 2024. The prosecution’s case rests on circumstantial evidence: a sequence alleging conspiracy, murder by strangulation with an iron leaf and rope, and disposal of the body on a railway track. The prosecution relied heavily on recoveries of items at the instance of the accused, the statements of witnesses (PW4, PW5, PW7) under Section 32(1 of the Indian Evidence Act), and subsequent inquest and post‑murder recoveries. The Sessions Judge accepted these recoveries as linking the accused to the crime. The appellants challenged the reliability of the circumstantial chain, the admissibility and credibility of the recovery evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the delayed, stage‑managed nature of several disclosures. The High Court, after detailed consideration, held that the evidence did not form an unbroken chain pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused and found serious flaws in the investigation and prosecution evidence, including plant evidence and missing corroboration. It concluded that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the recoveries could not sustain conviction.
This criminal appeal challenges a common order of the Kollam Court of Sessions dated 20 September 2006, arising in two petitions under Section 452 Cr.P.C. and a connected SC No.1179/2005. Abdul Shukoor, owner of Panthuvila Jewellery, contends that a gold ingot (176 grams) recovered by police belonged to him and was handed over under coercion, arguing that he was compelled to surrender the ingot to avoid being named as an accused. The informant in the case, who claimed ownership of 44 sovereigns of gold ornaments, sought interim custody under Section 452 Cr.P.C., which the trial court partially granted by directing the ingot’s custody in the informant’s favour after the appeal period. The appellate court, while upholding some aspects, ultimately did not disturb the trial court’s findings and dismissed Abdul Shukoor’s appeal. The court analyzed witness testimony (notably PW4, a goldsmith) and cross-examination, finding PW4 credible and suggesting contradictions in the petitioner’s version, including questions about the chain of events surrounding the melting of ornaments. The judgment cites Soni Chimanlal Jethalal v. State of Gujarat (1994) 1 Crimes (HC) 949 to illustrate the appellant’s reliance, but the court ultimately relies on regularity presumptions under the Indian Evidence Act. The appeal is dismissed, maintaining the trial court’s order and directing the ingot’s return to the informant after the appeal period.
Crl.Appeal No.1275 of 2007 This Kerala High Court judgment in Crl.A. No.1275 of 2007 under Section 378(4) CrPC deals with an appeal against an acquittal in a Customs Act case. The appellant, The Assistant Commissioner of Air Customs, Calicut Airport, Karipur, challenged acquittals of respondents 1 and 2 (brothers) and an additional respondent, the Passport Officer (Policy), Regional Passport Office, Mumbai, who were charged under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 for importing dexamethasone without declaration and thereby evading duty. The trial court had acquitted after considering the seizure mahazar (Ext. P1), chemical analysis (Ext. P3), and statements (Exts. P7-P8), noting delays in mahazar, inconsistencies in statements, and lack of independent corroboration. PW1, the detecting officer, testified that three cartons in respondent 1’s baggage and two in respondent 2’s were found, labeled as OMO stain remover powder but identified as Dexamethasone on chemical examination. The appellate court reversed the acquittal, holding that the respondents did not declare the contents to customs authorities, a breach of Section 77 Customs Act; the delay in seizure did not defeat probative value. It convicted the respondents and ordered confiscation with an option to redeem on payment of duty, penalty, and fine, imposing a fine of Rs 50,000 each with default imprisonment for six months. The court also discussed governing principles on appellate review of acquittals, citing Chandrappa, Shyam Babu, Bannareddy, Mallappa, and Central Bureau of Investigation v. Shyam Bihari to emphasize that an appellate court may re-appreciate evidence and must not disturb a plausible trial court view where two reasonable conclusions are possible.
This Kerala High Court judgment deals with a criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings arising from Crime No.52/2023 at the Poojappura Police Station and C.C. No.139/2023 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioners, Arun Babu, Subash Kumar alias Suma, and Shyam K Nair, are accused of offences including 294(b) (use of filthy language), 506(1) (criminal intimidation), 323 (causing hurt), and 341 r/w 34 IPC for allegedly confining the victim and causing harm. The prosecution case alleges wrongful confinement, assault, and use of offensive language against the victim. The petitioners contend that the dispute has been settled and that the victim has no objection to quashing the proceedings, supported by an affidavit. The Public Prosecutor initially expresses reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but concedes that settlement exists. The court invokes the Supreme Court’s decisions in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh, and Narinder Singh to articulate the governing principle: the power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences can be exercised when the dispute is private and settled, provided the offence is not heinous or within special statutes. After examining the facts, the court finds the dispute private and accepts the settlement, allowing the Crl.M.C. and quashing all further proceedings in CC 139/2023 and related actions.
This appeal arises from MACA No.1120 of 2012 before the Kerala High Court, challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam’s order in O.P.(MV) No.523 of 2008. The claimant, Babu Raj, was injured in a road accident on 05.09.2007 and sought compensation. The Tribunal found the first respondent negligent and also held that the policy conditions were violated due to the driver lacking a valid license, exonerating the insurer (3rd respondent). The appellant contends that exoneration was improper and that the insurer should initially pay compensation with a right to recover from the owner; he also seeks enhancement of compensation. The insurer argued the policy conditions were violated and liability should rest on the insured owner, with the insurer exonerated. The High Court re-evaluates the legal framework governing policy-violation cases, rejecting the tribunal’s reliance on Divisional Manager v. Chandran (2011 ACJ 981) to override Swaran Singh, and reaffirming the Swaran Singh doctrine that the insurer may be directed to pay with a right to recover from the owner, to ensure speedy relief for the claimant. The court also revisits the quantum, applying Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq principles to fix monthly income and enhance awards, ultimately ordering re-assessment to Rs.1,49,900 with interest and a deposit/recoup mechanism.
CRL.M.C. No. 3538 of 2015 The Kerala High Court, in a Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed by Sidhesh K., quashes a search warrant issued under Section 94 of the Cr.P.C. by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam. The petitioner challenges Annexure II of the order, arguing non-compliance with the procedural safeguards laid down for Section 94 proceedings. Relying on Gangadharan v. Chellappan (1985 KHC 265), the court emphasizes that an order under Section 94 requires the Magistrate to have information, to conduct an enquiry, and to possess a reason to believe that the place is used for the deposit of stolen property; the order must reflect mindful judicial reasoning and cannot be a mere rubber stamp. The judge notes that Annexure I was considered without an accompanying affidavit, and even with an affidavit, the required enquiry is mandatory. Citing Melicio Fernandez v. Mohan (AIR 1966 Goa, Daman and Diu 23), the court reiterates that the satisfaction must be objective and grounded in judicial review, not subjective whim. Consequently, the Magistrate’s order is unsustainable, and the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.04.2015 in CMP No.1/2015 is quashed, underscoring the need for strict adherence to the procedural safeguards before issuing search warrants and re-affirming the Magistrate’s duty to justify such orders on record.
This appeal (MACA No.1113 of 2022) arises from a 2021 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award in O.P.(M.V) No.1396/2016, granting ₹31,29,312 plus 8% interest to Arun Prasad for injuries from a 07.03.2016 accident involving a container lorry AP-05-TC-7917. The insurer, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., challenges the quantum on multiple grounds: (i) the Tribunal fixed a notional monthly income of ₹14,500 without cogent evidence; the petitioner claimed potential earnings from tuition but failed to prove it; (ii) ₹2,00,000 for pain and suffering and ₹1,50,000 for future treatment were argued as excessive or unsupported; (iii) the Tribunal adopted 45% permanent disability, whereas the Medical Board certified 39.6%, and the Court criticized the mechanical fixation of disability as per Raj Kumar. The insurer contends that the monthly income should be anchored in evidence and not fixed arbitrarily, and the disability and damages should reflect medical evidence and constitutional safeguards for future prospects (Pranay Sethi, Ramachandrappa). The High Court allows the appeal in part, re-fixing monthly income at ₹10,500 with a 40% addition for future prospects, relying on 39.6% disability from the Medical Board, and recalculating compensation to ₹25,70,881 with 8% interest. It directs payment within two months and adjusts deposits per Circular No.03/2019, keeping certain heads intact.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by Aji N.R. challenging an award of ₹9,09,125 with interest from the date of petition, granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, in O.P.(MV) No.1138/2014. The underlying incident occurred on 28 December 2013 when the petitioner, a pedestrian, was allegedly struck from behind by a second respondent on a public road near Uppupura, Athirampuzha, while walking. The second respondent-driver's negligence was found by the Tribunal, with the third respondent insurer arrayed as a party. The appeal concerns several heads of compensation, including notional income, pain and suffering, nourishment, loss of amenities, treatment and other expenses. The petitioner contends the Tribunal erred by inadequately calculating notional income (₹8,000/month) and inadequately compensating for pain and suffering, nourishment, and loss of amenities. The insurer contends lack of evidence for carpentry status and that the wage rate in GO (P) 134/2016/LBR is inapplicable without proof. The High Court modifies the notional income to ₹9,000/month, increases pain and suffering to ₹1,00,000, and grants ₹1,00,000 for loss of amenities, resulting in a total enhanced compensation of ₹10,32,925 with 7.5% interest and costs.
CRL.A Nos.802 and 803 of 2017 This is a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court hearing Criminal Appeal Nos. 802 and 803 of 2017 arising from SC 854/2015, Thrissur. The appellants—Aliyar (1st accused) and Amina @ Reena (2nd accused)—were convicted by a Special Court under the POCSO Act and IPC for offences including rape, with the second accused also charged under abetment provisions. The prosecution’s core case rested on the testimony of the victim, a girl allegedly aged around 17, who stated that on 23.08.2015 she and her mother and younger siblings were at a lodge when the first accused took nude photographs, showed pornographic material, and engaged in sexual acts with her, with the second accused allegedly aiding. The Special Court found the victim to suffer mental disability, rather than being a child, and held that the POCSO charges were not proven, but convicted the first accused for rape under IPC 376(2)(l)/(n) with the second accused abetting under IPC 109. On appeal, the High Court scrutinized the victim’s credibility, the medical-psychological evidence (PW16, Ext.P8, noting low IQ ~58 and ADHD), and lack of corroboration, including non-examination of the victim’s younger sister. Citing Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) to define a “sterling witness,” the court found serious doubts about PW1’s reliability and whether the core narrative could sustain a guilty verdict beyond reasonable doubt. It held that the accused could not be convicted and allowed the appeals, acquitting both appellants and directing release.
This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC 7819/2016) challenging the final report in CC 749/2015 arising from Crime No. 523/2015 at Kurathikadu Police Station, Alappuzha. The petitioners, Sreelakha and Gopi Kurup, contend that the 2nd petitioner has died and the charge against him is abated, and that even if the allegations are assumed true, no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out against the 1st petitioner, as the transaction reflects a civil loan and the instrument is a cheque security bearing an overwriting signature. The prosecution is said to amount to harassment and abuse of process, calling for quashing. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, submits that a prima facie case exists against the 1st petitioner and that the court should not interfere at this stage, allowing the petitioner to stand trial. The court examined the FIR and the final report and found that, even if proven, the essential elements of cheating under Section 420 IPC are not satisfied and that the matter appears to be a monetary dispute with civil liability. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, including Vijayasarathy and Daba, and ARCI v Nimra Cerglass, the court held that continuation of criminal action in the absence of fraud/dishonesty can be quashed. Accordingly, the court allowed the CRL.MC, quashed proceedings against the 1st petitioner, abated the charge against the 2nd petitioner, and quashed all further proceedings.
This Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arises from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, in MACT Case No. 939/2003, granting compensation to the original claimant for injuries sustained in a road accident on 3 April 2002 involving a goods autorickshaw insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,34,000 with 7.5% interest, holding the Insurance Company liable due to policy conditions while giving liberty to recover from the owner. The appellant, the deceased original petitioner’s legal heirs (appellants 2 to 4) and their advocate contended that disability compensation for post-retirement loss of earnings should be recalculated, arguing for a higher amount based on post-retirement income and a 9-year multiplier, relying on the decision in Raju Sebastian v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. They asserted that post-retirement income should be Rs. 4,000 per month with 15% permanent disability, yielding Rs. 64,800, and sought higher sums for loss of earnings and pain and suffering (notably Rs. 24,000 and Rs. 35,000 respectively). They also asserted that the policy-violation finding should not defeat the insurer’s liability. The respondents argued maintenance of the Tribunal’s findings and policy-based liability on the insurer. The High Court allowed the appeal, enhanced total compensation to Rs. 1,23,800, and held the Insurance Company solely liable, directing NEFT/RTGS transfer within a month, with 7.5% interest on the enhanced amount from the petition date, and excluding interest on delayed filing for an specified period.
