Kerala High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Unneenkutty on 14 September, 2021
R.P.Nos. 328 & 309 of 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA, 1943
RP NO. 328 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MACA 989/2013 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:
1 UNNENKUTTY
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.UNNIPOKKU HAJI,
2 ASIYA
AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.UNNEENKUTTY.
3 MUHAMMED KOYA
AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.UNNEENKUTTY.
4 AYISHAKUTTY
AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.UNNEENKUTTY.
5 KHADEEJA
AGED 15 YEARS (MINOR).
6 THABSEERA
AGED 13 YEARS (MINOR)
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)
BY ADV SRI.K.VIDYASAGAR
RESPONDENT/S:
R.P.Nos. 328 & 309 of 2018
2
1 AHAMMEDKUTTY.M.P
S/O.UNNIMAMMED, MANGATTUPARAMBIL, PUTHUKUDI,
P.O.OMANUR, CHERUVAYOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-
673645.
2 BALAKRISHNAN K.
S/O.BICHIKKANDAN, KAYATHIMMAL HOUSE, P.O.OMANUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673645.
3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
BRANCH OFFICE, MANJERI, JASEELA COMPLEX, BYPASS
JUNCTION, NILAMBUR ROAD, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT-676121.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.09.2021, ALONG WITH RP.309/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.Nos. 328 & 309 of 2018
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA, 1943
RP NO. 309 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MACA 989/2013 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
BRANCH OFFICE, MANJERY, JASEELA COMPLEX, BYEPASS
JUNCTION, NILAMBOOR ROAD, MANJERY, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT- 676 121.
BY ADV SRI.TITUS MANI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNNEENKUTTY
AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. UNNIPOKKU HAJI,
2 ASIYA AGED 47 YEARS WO. UNNEENKUTTY.
3 KUHAMMED KOYA AGED 29 YEARS SO. UNNEENKUTTY.
4 AYISHAKUTTY AGED 27 YEARS DO. UNNEENKUTTY.
5 KHADEEJA AGED 15 YEARS MINOR.
6 THABSEERA AGED 13 YEARS MINOR.
7 FATHIMA FIDHA AGED 3 YEARS MINOR
MINOR PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR FATHER
AND LEGAL GUARDIAN UNNENKUTTY AND ALL ARE RESIDING
AT PEEDIKAKANDY HOUSE, P.O. MUNDAKKAL, CHERUVAYOOR
R.P.Nos. 328 & 309 of 2018
4
VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 645)
8 AHAMMEDKUTTY S/O. UNNIMAMMED
MANGATTUPARAMBIL, PUTHUKUDI, P.O. OMANUR,
CHERUVAYOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 645.
9 BALAKRISHNAN K
S/O. BICHIKKANDAN, KAYATHIMMAL HOUSE, P.O. OMANUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 645.
BY ADVS.
K.VIDYASAGAR
K.VIDYASAGAR
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:
R.P.Nos. 328 & 309 of 2018
5
ORDER
Both the appellants and the 3rd 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.
2. 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.
3. The case of the review petitioner in R.P.
No.309/2018, the 3rd 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.
R.P.Nos. 328 & 309 of 2018
Heard.
4. 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.
5. In the said circumstances, I allow both the
review petitions by recalling the judgment dated
03.01.2018 in MACA No.989 of 2013.
Post the appeal for reconsideration on 22.09.2021.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS
JUDGE
rkc
