Allowed

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Thankamma

Kerala HC14 Aug 2020RP/548/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala reviewed its own judgment of 17.12.2019 in M.A.C.A. No.2513 of 2012. The court corrected the operative portion to exclude compensation for loss of consortium payable to the deceased's siblings, reducing the total award. A corrected copy was directed to be issued.

What did the court decide?

The operative portion of the reviewed judgment was corrected to declare the additional compensation at Rs.4,93,900/- and a corrected copy was directed.

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

RP.No.548 OF 2020 IN MACA. 2513/2012

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MACA 2513/2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶8

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 482,483, SNV CHAMBERS, 111 FLOOR, COIMBATORE, PIN-641 012, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS AND R1 & R2:

¶11

1 THANKAMMA, W/O. PAULOSE @ PAUL, THANDATHU @ PALAKKATTUMARI HOUSE, KEEZHILLOM KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE.

¶12

2 CINU PAUL.T., D/O. PAULOSE @ PAUL, THANDATHU @ PALAKKATTUMARI HOUSE, KEEZHILLOM KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE.

¶13

3 C.PARAMESWARI, W/O. CHINNAKKANNAN, PERIYAKANI KONAR STREET, VELANDIPALAYAL, COIMBTORE-641 025,TAMIL NADU.

¶14

4 KANNAN, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, DOOR NO.11/66A, (10/40 B), THADAGAM ROAD, COIMBATORE, PIN-641 012.

¶15

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

RP.No.548 OF 2020 IN MACA. 2513/2012

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The 3^rd respondent insurer in O.P.(MV) No.1164 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, has filed this review petition, under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 17.12.2019 in M.A.C.A. No.2513 of 2012, pointing out the mistake in granting an excess compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the 1^st appellant in M.A.C.A., under the head filial consortium.

¶20

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner/3^rd respondent insurer, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2/appellants 2 and 3 and respondents 3 and 4/respondents 1 and 2.

¶21

Paragraph 44 of the judgment sought to be reviewed reads

¶22

thus:

¶23

“44. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. referred to supra, Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned award towards funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, resulting an an additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- (15,000 – 5,000); Rs.10,000/- awarded towards loss of consortium to 1st appellant is enhanced to Rs.40,000/- and the same is granted under the head filial consortium, resulting an additional compensation of Rs.30,000/- (40,000 – 10,000); Rs.25,000/- awarded towards loss of consortium to appellants 1 to 3 is re-fixed

¶24

¶25

RP.No.548 OF 2020 IN MACA. 2513/2012

¶26

as Rs.40,000/- each (40,000 x 2 = 80,000) to appellants 1 and 2 and the same is granted under the head filial consortium, resulting an additional compensation of Rs.55,000/- (80,000 – 25,000). As already noticed, the concept of spousal consortium to the surviving spouse; parental consortium to the children of the deceased; and filial consortium to the parents of the deceased child laid down by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. does not speak anything as to the right of siblings to get compensated under the head loss of consortium. Therefore, the 3^rd appellant is not entitled for payment of any compensation under the head loss of consortium or loss of love and affection.”

¶27

(underline supplied)

¶28

By the judgment sought to be reviewed, Rs.25,000/awarded by the Tribunal, to appellants 1 to 3 towards loss of consortium is refixed as Rs.40,000 each (40,000 X 2 = 80,000) and the same is granted to appellants 1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased, under the head filial consortium. Therefore, the words “Rs.10,000/- awarded towards loss of consortium to 1st appellant is enhanced to Rs.40,000/- and the same is granted under the head filial consortium, resulting an additional compensation of Rs.30,000/- (40,000 – 10,000);” in paragraph 44 of the judgment sought to be reviewed is deleted. Consequently the total additional compensation payable will be Rs.4,93,900/ -, instead of Rs.5,23,900/- .

¶29

RP.No.548 OF 2020 IN MACA. 2513/2012

¶30

¶31

Consequently, the 1^st sentence in the operative portion of the judgment sought to be reviewed is corrected as “In the result, the appellants/claimants are entitled for payment of an additional compensation of Rs.4,93,900/- [Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety

¶32

Three Thousand Nine Hundred only] [4,16,400 + 10,000 +

¶33

55,000 + 12,500] in this appeal, which will carry interest at the

¶34

rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.”

¶35

The review petition is disposed of as above.

¶36

Registry to issue corrected copy of the judgment to both

sides.

Sd/-

ANIL K NARENDRAN

JUDGE

MIN

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Thankamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Thankamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Oriental Rocks Products Pvt.Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

Soman C.G. Vs the Secretary, Kozhencherry Grama Panchayat

Babu Mani @ Panyullathil Babu Vs the District Collector

K. Sukumara Kurup Vs District Collector

Anil Raghavan Vs District Collector

Sivakumar.P Vs Panmana Grama Panchayath