The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Sapna Chitawale
2024 Latest Caselaw 6227 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Sapna Chitawale on 29 February, 2024

Author: Pranay Verma

Bench: Pranay Verma

                                                           1
                            IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
                                             ON THE 29 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                            REVIEW PETITION No. 1191 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. T.P. HUB 240
                           SAKET NAGAR INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                           (MS. PRITI KESHWANI - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    SAPNA   W/O    LT.  KISHAN  CHITAWALE
                                 OCCUPATION: LABOR R/O AMBEDKAR COLONY
                                 SENDHWA BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    RAJESH S/O LALARAM PAL GADRIYA, AGED
                                 ABOUT    31  YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER
                                 GAWALMOH BADARWADA, SHIVPURI (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           3.    MAHENDRA RAWAT S/O ISHWAR RAWAT
                                 OCCUPATION: BUSINESS BY PASS ROAD SHIV
                                 COLONY, SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    MADAN S/O RUPA CHITAWALE, AGED ABOUT 65
                                 YE A R S , OCCUPATION: NOTHING AMBEDKAR
                                 COLONY,      SENDHWA,   BARWANI (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           5.    BALIBAI W/O MADAN CHITAWALE, AGED ABOUT
                                 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOTHING AMBEDKAR
                                 COLONY,    SENDHWA,   BARWANI   (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                           (RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI HEMANT VAISHNAV - ADVOCATE)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEERAJ
SARVATE
Signing time: 01-03-2024
14:05:59
                                                                2
                                                                ORDER

1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner/Insurance Company praying for review of the order dated 25.08.2023 passed in M.A. No.279/2020.

2. This petition has been preferred on the ground that filial consortium has been awarded to respondents 4 and 5 also though they are the grand parents of the deceased. As per the decisions of the Supreme Court themselves relied upon in the order it is only the parents who are entitled for award of filial consortium and not the grand parents. Respondents 4 and 5 being the grand parents of the deceased are not entitled.

3. From a perusal of the record it is apparent that respondent No.4 Madan and respondent No.5 Balibai are the grand parents of the deceased. In the judgments which have been relied in the impugned order filial consortium had been granted to the parents and not to the grand parents. To that extent there does appear to be an error apparent on the face of record.

4. Consequently the petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. The order dated 25.08.2023 passed in M.A. No.279/2020 is hereby recalled and the said appeal is restored to its original number for hearing. It is however clarified that the appeal has been restored only to the extent of considering as to whether filial consortium could have been awarded to respondents 4 and 5.

5. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE ns