Partly allowed

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, v. Sarasamma

Kerala HC7 Nov 2023RP/870/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition challenged an insurance claim judgment. The High Court allowed the review partly, accepting the petitioner's argument on calculating loss of dependency and correcting the future prospects enhancement to 10% as per Pranay Sethi. Specific amounts were modified in the operative table.

What did the court decide?

The judgment in M.A.C.A. No.1105 of 2010 was modified to increase the total amount to Rs.8,99,260/- by adjusting loss of dependency and future prospects.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Vs Sarasamma — Insurance | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1945 RP NO.870 OF 2023

¶3

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.06.2023 IN MACA 1105/2010 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶4

REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD RESPONDENT IN MACA:

¶5

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD, TRIPURI BUILDING, EAST NADAKKAVU, CALICUT 673011 REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER

¶6

BY ADVS. JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD C.JOSEPH JOHNY

¶7

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN MACA:

¶8

1 SARASAMMA

¶9

AGED 83 YEARS PETTAPARMABATH HOUSE, TODANUR P.O, VATAKARA, PIN - 673108

¶10

2 SHOBHA

¶11

AGED 37 YEARS W/O.JAYAPRAKASHAN, PETTAPARAMBATH HOUSE, TODANUR P.O, VATAKARA, PIN - 673108

¶12

3 PRAJOSH AGED 15 YEARS S/O.JAYAPRAKASHAN, REP.THROUGH MOTHER SHOBHA, AGED 37, W/O.JAYAPRAKASHAN, PETTAMPARAMBATH (H), TODANUR P.O, VATAKARA, PIN - 673108

¶13

RP NO.87 MACA No.	0/2023 in 2 1105/2010
4	PRAJISHA AGED 10 YEARS D/O.JAYAPRAKASHAN, REP.THROUGH MOTHER SHOBHA, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.JAYAPRAKASHAN, PETTAMPARAMBATH (H), TODANUR (P.O),VATAKARA, PIN - 673108
5	T.M.SOOPY AGED 49 YEARS S/O. MAMMU, THERUVATH HOUSE, ATHIYODI P.O, KURACHNDE, PIN - 673527
6	MOOSA AGED 50 YEARS S/O.ABDULLA CHERIYA MUKKOLAKKAL (H), KOTTAKAL, IRINGAL P.O, VATAKARA, PIN – 673521
	BY ADV.P.M.HABEEB, R1 TO R4
TH	IS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.11.2 FOLLOWI	023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE NG:

¶14

RP NO.870/2023 in 3 MACA No.1105/2010

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Dated this the 7^th day of November, 2023

¶17

This Review Petition is filed pointing out the errors in the judgment of this Court in M.A.C.A.No.1105 of 2010 dated 30.06.2023.

¶18

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (third respondent in M.A.C.A.) and the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 (claimants).

¶19

3. The first aspect pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the schedule shown in page No.6 of the judgment, is that while calculating the loss of dependency, this Court committed an error in excluding the amount for personal expenses. Learned counsel pointe d out that the deceased had four dependents. Therefore, 1/4 has to be deducted for personal expenses and the loss of dependency ought to

¶20

¶21

RP NO.870/2023 in MACA No.1105/2010

¶22

have been arrived at by multiplying with 3/4, instead of

¶23

4/5 as taken in the judgment under review. The contention of the learned counsel for the review petitioner is correct and the same is accepted.

¶24

4. The second aspect pointed out by the learned counsel is with respect to future prospects, wherein this Court has reckoned 25% enhancement to the established income of the deceased. It was pointed out that the deceased was of the age group between 50 and 59 and he was a self employed person. Therefore, going by Clause (iv) of paragraph 61 in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], the appropriate enhancement applicable is only 10%, instead of 25%. This contention is also liable to be recognised, having perused the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra).

¶25

5. The third contention raised is regarding the duplication occasioned by awarding amounts under the head

¶26

RP NO.870/2023 in 5 MACA No.1105/2010

¶27

'loss of dependency' and 'future prospects'. This irregularity can be resolved by clubbing the 10% enhancement for future prospects along with the head 'loss of dependency'.

¶28

6. The last contention raised is that 10% enhancement granted to funeral expenses and loss of estate in accord with the directions in Pranay Sethi (supra) is illegal, for the reason that Pranay Sethi (supra) is a judgment which was rendered in the year 2017 and that enhancement can be granted only in respect of claims which were preferred after 2020. This contention is not liable to be accepted. A perusal of the entire comprehensive judgment by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra) would indicate that the same would apply to pending cases as well.

¶29

In the circumstances, this Review Petition is allowed in part modifying the loss of dependency and the future prospects as indicated in the table herein below:

¶30

RP NO.870/2023 in MACA No.1105/2010

¶31

¶32

Sl. No.	Head of Claim	Amount awarded by the Tribunal	Total amount after enhancement
1	Loss of Dependency	3,16,800	6,53,400 *
2	Consortium	10,000	1,76,000
3	Love and Affection	53,000	[44,000 x 4]
4	Medical Bills and Ambulance Bills	36,860	36,860
5	Funeral Expenses	10,000	16,500 [15000+15000x10/100]
6	Loss of Estate	–-	16,500 [15000+15000x10/100]
	Total	4,26,660	8,99,260/-
Amou	nt enhanced = Rs.	8,99,260–4,2	6,660 = Rs.4,72,600/-

¶33

*** [6,000 x 12 x 11 x ¾ x 110/100]**

¶34

RP NO.870/2023 in 7 MACA No.1105/2010

¶35

To the above extent, the judgment in M.A.C.A. No.1105 of 2010 will stand modified.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶38

csl

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, v. Sarasamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, v. Sarasamma

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

Ambika Vs Vijayan

Narayani M.V Vs Kappadan Balan

Swathy Vs Ajith.v

Davis Vs Raghavan

Muraleedharan K.G Vs Maben Nidhi Ltd.

Jinta Job Vs Anil J Pullolil