P N UNNI Vs. BABY JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeals arise from the common award passed by the Additional Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Alappuzha in O. P. (MV)Nos. 699, 700 and 1104 of 1993. M. F. A. No. 442 of 1997 is filed against the award in o. P. (MV) No. 699 of 1993. The appellants who are the claimants in the said original petition are respectively the father, mother and brother of deceased Monisha. M. F. A. No. 353 of 1997 is filed by the sole claimant against the award passed in O. P. (MV) No. 700 of 1993. The claimant in the said case is the mother of the deceased who is also the second claimant in O. P. (MV) No. 699 of 1993. Both the appeals are filed by the claimants challenging the quantum of compensation. M. F. A. Nos. 398 and 774 of 1997 are filed by the Managing Director of the kerala State Road Transport Corporation, thiruvananthapuram (for short "the k. S. R. T. C. ") who is the third respondent in o. P. (MV) Nos. 699 and 700 of 1993, challenging the award by which 20% liability was fixed on it. M. F. A. No. 562 of 1997 arises from the award passed in O. P. (MV) No. 1104 of 1993 by the same Tribunal. The said appeal is filed by the K. S. R. T. C. claiming enhancement for the damage caused to the bus. Parties to these appeals are referred to as petitioners and respondents as mentioned in O. P. (MV) No. 699 of 1993.

(2.) THE facts of the case in nut shell are as follows : o. P. (MV) No. 699 of 1993 was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ("the M. V. Act") claiming compensation for the death of Monisha Unni who died in a motor vehicle accident on 5-12-1993 at 6 a. m. at x'ray Junction, Cherthala. The petitioners are the father, mother and brother of the deceased. The first and second respondents are respectively the owner and insurer of the car in which the deceased was travelling. The third and fourth respondents are respectively the owner and driver of the bus. The deceased Monisha was a famous cine artist and dancer. She was aged 21 at the time of her death. She bagged the National award for the first film in which she acted at the age of 14. The deceased had acted in 25 films and in 1992 itself she had acted in six films. The petitioners stated that deceased monisha was an expert in Bharathanatyam, mohiniyattom and other classical dances, that she used to perform dance programmes every year in the USA, UAE, Kuwait and other Gulf countries as well as in Kerala and other States and that she used to get Rs. 1,50, 000/- for a single set of programme in gulf countries and Rs. 10,000/- for one programme in Kerala and other States. They also stated that the deceased used to get rs. 50,000/- to Rs. l, 00,000 /- for a single film and that her annual income was more than Rs. 6,00,000/ -. According to them, had it not been for the accident, the deceased would have continued in her profession for at least twenty years more. They, therefore, claimed Rs. one crore as compensation, but limited their claim to Rs. 60,00,000/ -. The petitioners further stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of car bearing Registration No. KDE 3774 in which the deceased was travelling and the driver of KSRTC bus bearing Registration no. KLX 6139. The driver of the car and another person also died in the accident. The claim was resisted by respondents 1 to 4. The first and second respondents contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the fourth respondent, the driver of the bus and hence they are not liable to pay any compensation. Though the insurance policy of the car was admitted, they disputed the income of the deceased and the dependency of the petitioners. The third and fourth respondents filed a joint written statement denying their liability to pay compensation. According to them, the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car. They also disputed the income of the deceased and the dependency of the petitioners. The second petitioner also filed another O. P. (MV) No. 700 of 1993 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the accident. Both these Original Petitions and O. P. (MV)No. 11044 of 1993 filed by the KSRTC were tried together. The mother of the deceased was examined as P. W. 1. Four other witnesses were examined on the side of the petitioners in O. P. (MV) Nos. 669 and 700 of 1993 as P. Ws. 2 to 5 and Exts. A1 to A81 were marked. Ext. B1 was marked on the side of the respondents. P. Ws. 1 to 3 were examined on the side of the petitioners in o. P. (MV) No. 1104 of 1993 and Exts. Al to a6 were marked. The father, mother and brother of deceased Monisha who are the petitioners in O. P. (MV) No. 699 of 1993 claimed Rs. 60,00,000/- as compensation for the death of Monisha. The mother of the deceased who is the claimant in O. P. (MV)No. 700 of 1993 claimed Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the accident.

(3.) THE Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car and that the KSRTC bus driver also contributed to the accident in the proportion of 80% and 20%. By a common award dated 6-9-1996 the Tribunal awarded Rs. 9,49, 000/- with 12% interest from the date of the Original Petition till realisation to the claimants in O. P. (MV) No. 699 of 1993. The first petitioner was granted rs. 3,00, 000/-, the second petitioner Rs. 5,00,000/- and the balance amount. of Rs. 1,49,000/- was granted to the third petitioner. The petitioners were allowed to realise 80% of the total amount of Rs. 9,49,000/-with 12% interest from respondents 1 and 2 and the balance 20% with 12% interest from respondents 3 and 4. The Tribunal also allowed partly the claim in O. P. (MV) No. 700 of 1993. The mother of the deceased who is the petitioner in O. P. (MV) No. 700 of 1993 was permitted to realise an amount of Rs. 2,42,500/- from the respondents therein with 12% interest from the date of the petition till realisation. In that case also, the second respondent was directed to pay 80% of the award amount and the third respondent was directed to pay 20% of the amount. The petitioner in O. P. No. 1104 of 1993 was allowed to realise from the first and second respondents therein 80% of Rs. 36,180/- (Rs. 28,944/-) with 12% interest per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. The award passed by the Tribunal is under challenge in these appeals.