Kerala High Court
Bridget vs Vinod on 27 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
RP NO. 522 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 17.03.2023 IN MACA NO.1599 OF
2013 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:
1 BRIDGET
AGED 76 YEARS
W/O.THOMAS, VALLITHANAM HOUSE,
KAINAKARY KARA & VILLAGE,
KAINAKARY, ALAPUZHA - 688 501.
PIN - 688501
2 MARIAMMA THOMAS
AGED 55 YEARS
D/O. THOMAS, VALLITHANAM HOUSE,
KAINAKARY KARA & VILLAGE,
KAINAKARY, ALAPUZHA - 688 501,
PIN - 688501
3 MINI THOMAS
AGED 50 YEARS
D/O. THOMAS, VALLITHANAM HOUSE,
KAINAKARY KARA & VILLAGE,
KAINAKARY, ALAPUZHA - 688 501,
PIN - 688501
4 MANJU THOMAS
AGED 46 YEARS
D/O. THOMAS, VALLITHANAM HOUSE,
KAINAKARY KARA & VILLAGE,
KAINAKARY, ALAPUZHA - 688 501,
PIN - 688501
5 METTY THOMAS
AGED 42 YEARS
D/O. THOMAS, VALLITHANAM HOUSE,
KAINAKARY KARA & VILLAGE,
KAINAKARY, ALAPUZHA - 688 501,
PIN - 688501
R.P No.522 of 2023 2
6 MERRY THOMAS
AGED 42 YEARS
D/O. THOMAS, VALLITHANAM HOUSE,
KAINAKARY KARA & VILLAGE,
KAINAKARY, ALAPUZHA - 688 501,
PIN - 688501
7 MERLY THOMAS
AGED 41 YEARS
D/O. THOMAS, VALLITHANAM HOUSE,
KAINAKARY KARA & VILLAGE,
KAINAKARY, ALAPUZHA - 688 501,
PIN - 688501
BY ADV MATHEW JOHN (K)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 VINOD
S/O NARAYANAN, HOUSE NO T.C. 11/245,
KARTHIKA HOUSE, NEAR VELLAYAMABALAM
JUNCTION, NANDANCODE,KAVADIYAR
VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM 695003., PIN -
695003
2 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PALA
BRANCH - 686 575., PIN - 686575
BY ADV SARAH SALVY
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.03.2024, THE COURT ON 27.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P No.522 of 2023 3
ORDER
The appellants in MACA No.1599 of 2013 are seeking review of
the appeal judgment, alleging that it is vitiated by an error apparent
on the face of the record.
2. The petitioners (appellants 2 to 8) are the legal heirs of the
deceased 1st appellant. As per the appeal judgment, petitioners 2 to 7
(appellants 3 to 8) were awarded Rs.10,000/- each towards loss of
love and affection, whereas the 1st petitioner-wife was awarded
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. The case of the petitioners is
that, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram [2018 (3) KLT
Online 3095 (SC)], irrespective of the age of the petitioners, they were
entitled to get compensation under the head 'filial consortium'. Since
that amount was not awarded, the judgment is vitiated, and hence to
be reviewed.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel
for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company.
4. First of all, the petition for review on the ground that filial
consortium was not granted to the petitioners, is not correct. When
compensation is claimed for the premature death of a parent, the
consortium to be claimed is parental consortium and not filial
consortium. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to get
compensation in case of accidental death of their children.
5. That apart, petitioners 2 to 7 are the children of deceased
Thomas, all aged between 41 to 55 years, even going by their petition.
The 1st petitioner-wife alone was found to be the dependent of the
deceased. In paragraph 10 of the appeal judgment, this Court found
that, as far as love and affection of a father is concerned, the children
despite they being matured, married or age old, as they lost the love
of their father forever, Rs.10,000/- each was awarded to petitioners 2
to 7 (appellants 3 to 8) for loss of love and affection.
6. Now the claim of the petitioners is that, each petitioner is
entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each under the head 'loss of consortium' as
per the decision Magma General Insurance Co. cited supra.
7. In the decision Magma General Insurance Co., relying on
the Constitution Bench decision National Insurance Company Ltd.
vs. Pranay Sethi and Others [(2017) 16 SCC 680], the Apex Court
held that, in legal parlance, 'consortium' is a compendious term which
encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium' and 'filial
consortium'. The right to consortium would include the company,
care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased,
which is a loss to his family. Parental consortium is granted to the
child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of parental aid,
protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.
8. In the decision Magma General Insurance Co. cited supra
and also in United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @
Satwinder Kaur and others (2020 (3) KHC 760 : 2020 ACJ 2131),
the word 'child' used by the Apex Court clearly indicates that, only a
minor child is entitled to parental consortium, as that compensation is
awarded for loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society,
discipline, guidance and training. As far as children who are major and
married and who are not dependent on their parents, we cannot say
that they are entitled for parental consortium.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a Single Bench
decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd v.
Gopinathan (2023 (2) KLT 368) in which it was held that, when
consortium becomes payable to children, it does not mean that, it will
be only eligible to a girl or boy under the age of 14, but even to a
person much beyond that age, if the premature death of his/her
father/mother is on account of a road traffic accident. In that decision,
the learned Single Judge upheld the compensation granted by the
Tribunal to the claimants under the head 'loss of love and affection'
stating that, it should have been titled as 'loss of consortium'. But,
going by the Apex Court decisions Pranay Sethi and Magma
General Insurance Co. cited supra, parental consortium is the
consortium granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent,
for loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline,
guidance and training.
10. In the case on hand, the petitioners, though they were
mature and independent, each of them were awarded compensation of
Rs.10,000/- each for loss of love and affection.
So, there is no error apparent on the face of the record, so as to
review the judgment in MACA No.1599 of 2013.
The review petition fails and hence dismissed.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS
JUDGE
smp
