Allowed

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Unneenkutty

Kerala HC14 Sept 2021RP/309/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed two review petitions filed by the appellant family and the insurance insurer against a damages judgment. Finding an error apparent on the face of the record regarding multiplier application and assessment of loss of consortium, the court recalled the impugned judgment dated 03.01.2018 for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Both review petitions allowed; judgment dated 03.01.2018 in MACA No.989 of 2013 recalled and matter to be considered afresh.

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

R.P.Nos. 328 & 309 of 2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA, 1943

¶7

RP NO. 328 OF 2018

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MACA 989/2013 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶9

REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

¶10

1 UNNENKUTTY AGED 49 YEARS S/O.UNNIPOKKU HAJI,

¶11

2 ASIYA AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.UNNEENKUTTY.

¶12

3 MUHAMMED KOYA AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.UNNEENKUTTY.

¶13

4 AYISHAKUTTY AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.UNNEENKUTTY.

¶14

5 KHADEEJA AGED 15 YEARS (MINOR).

¶15

6 THABSEERA AGED 13 YEARS (MINOR)

¶16

7 FATHIMA FIDHA AGED 3 YEARS (MINOR)(MINOR PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR FATHER AND LEGAL GUARDIAN UNNEENKUTTY. ALL ARE RESIDING AT PEEDIKAKANDY HOUSE, P.O.MUNDAKKAL, CHERUVAYOOR VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673645)

¶17

BY ADV SRI.K.VIDYASAGAR

¶18

RESPONDENT/S:

¶19

R.P.Nos. 328 & 309 of 2018

¶20

¶21

1 AHAMMEDKUTTY.M.P S/O.UNNIMAMMED, MANGATTUPARAMBIL, PUTHUKUDI, P.O.OMANUR, CHERUVAYOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT673645.

¶22

2 BALAKRISHNAN K. S/O.BICHIKKANDAN, KAYATHIMMAL HOUSE, P.O.OMANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673645.

¶23

3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE, MANJERI, JASEELA COMPLEX, BYPASS JUNCTION, NILAMBUR ROAD, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676121.

¶24

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶25

14.09.2021, ALONG WITH RP.309/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

R.P.Nos. 328 & 309 of 2018

¶27

¶28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶31

TUESDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA, 1943

¶32

RP NO. 309 OF 2018

¶33

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MACA 989/2013 OF HIGH COURT

¶34

OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶35

REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

¶36

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE, MANJERY, JASEELA COMPLEX, BYEPASS JUNCTION, NILAMBOOR ROAD, MANJERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 676 121.

¶37

BY ADV SRI.TITUS MANI

¶38

RESPONDENT/S:

¶39

1 UNNEENKUTTY AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. UNNIPOKKU HAJI,

¶40

2 ASIYA AGED 47 YEARS WO. UNNEENKUTTY.

¶41

3 KUHAMMED KOYA AGED 29 YEARS SO. UNNEENKUTTY.

¶42

4 AYISHAKUTTY AGED 27 YEARS DO. UNNEENKUTTY.

¶43

5 KHADEEJA AGED 15 YEARS MINOR.

¶44

6 THABSEERA AGED 13 YEARS MINOR.

¶45

7 FATHIMA FIDHA AGED 3 YEARS MINOR

¶46

MINOR PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR FATHER AND LEGAL GUARDIAN UNNENKUTTY AND ALL ARE RESIDING AT PEEDIKAKANDY HOUSE, P.O. MUNDAKKAL, CHERUVAYOOR

¶47

¶48

R.P.Nos. 328 & 309 of 2018

¶49

VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 645)

¶50

8 AHAMMEDKUTTY S/O. UNNIMAMMED MANGATTUPARAMBIL, PUTHUKUDI, P.O. OMANUR, CHERUVAYOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 645.

¶51

9 BALAKRISHNAN K S/O. BICHIKKANDAN, KAYATHIMMAL HOUSE, P.O. OMANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 645.

¶52

BY ADVS. K.VIDYASAGAR K.VIDYASAGAR

¶53

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.09.2021, ALONG WITH RP.328/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶54

R.P.Nos. 328 & 309 of 2018

¶55

¶56

ORDER

¶57

Both the appellants and the 3^rd respondent insurer in the appeal have filed the above review petitions, contending that there is an error apparent on the face of record in the above judgment.

¶58

The case of the review petitioners in R.P.No.328/2018, the appellants in the appeal, is that, this Court while passing the impugned judgment, has applied the wrong multiplier, has failed to award future prospects and has wrongly calculated the notional income of the deceased. Therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the record.

¶59

The case of the review petitioner in R.P. No.309/2018, the 3^rd respondent insurer in the appeal, on the other hand is that loss of consortium awarded by this Court to the parents of the deceased is erroneous, therefore, there is an error in the judgment.

¶60

R.P.Nos. 328 & 309 of 2018

¶61

¶62

Heard.

¶63

Since both the appellants as well as the 3^rd respondent insurer have found fault with the impugned judgment on the grounds stated above, which I find to be correct, that there is an error apparent on the face of record. Hence I am satisfied that the impugned judgment is to be recalled and the matter is to be considered afresh.

¶64

In the said circumstances, I allow both the review petitions by recalling the judgment dated 03.01.2018 in MACA No.989 of 2013.

¶65

Post the appeal for reconsideration on 22.09.2021.

¶66

sd/-

¶67

C.S.DIAS JUDGE

¶68

rkc

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Unneenkutty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Unneenkutty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasanna Das Vs K.P.Abdul Razak

Lipika & Others Vs Joseph & Others

Vadakkan Thari Ayishumma Vs Shahul Hameed T.

P.R.Sudamoni Vs Mohanan.v.v and Other

Omana Vs Krishnan

Benny Vs K.v.Francis and Others