Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 U.S.A., U.A.E.,  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.1,00,000/- 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 K.S.R.T.C. 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.1104 of 1993 filed by the K.S.R.T.C. were tried together. The mother of the deceased was examined as PW.1. Four other witnesses were examined on the side of the petitioners in O.P. (MV) Nos.669 and 700 of 1993 as PWs.2 to 5 and Exts.A1 to A81 were marked. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the respondents. PWs.1 to 3 were examined on the side of the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.1104 of 1993 and Exts.A1 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.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended before us that the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the monthly income of deceased Monisha at Rs.10,000/-. The deceased was aged 21 at the time of the accident. The first claimant, father of the deceased was aged 52 and the second claimant, mother was aged 46 at the time of the accident. The deceased was a cine artist and a famous dancer during the relevant time. It has come out in evidence that she was a dancer of good reputation even during her earlier days and that she used to earn sufficient income from that source. Further, as a famous dancer she used to get programmes all over India and abroad. Evidence would show that the deceased had performed dance programmes in the U.S.A. and the Gulf countries on several occasions. According to the claimants, the deceased used to earn between Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- for two weeks dance programmes abroad and for the dance programmes in Kerala and other States she used to get Rs.10,000/- for each programme and that she used to get a minimum of 30 dance programmes a year in India. Another source of income of the deceased is the remuneration that she used to get as an  actress. The deceased had acted as heroine in many Malayalam films and in other regional languages. At the age of 14, the deceased got the National award for her first film "Nakhakshathangal". It is the case of the petitioners that no other actress in India had won the National award at such a young age. By the time she was 21 she had acted in more than 25 films and that the remuneration that she received from acting was between Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- excluding all expenses. Besides her roles in the films, the deceased was an active participant as an actress in television programmes and she used to earn from the said source also.

The deceased had also secured many merit certificates in dance and music as a student. Her proficiency in dancing, music and other arts are proved by Exts.A8 to A18 merit certificates. Exts.A19, A20, A33, A34, A35, A36, A37, A43, A46, A47, A48, A50, A51, A58, A67 and A73 are some of the brochures which show the programmes undertaken by the deceased.

A number of invitation letters also have been produced evidencing her busy engagements in dance programmes both in India and abroad.

12. Considering the fact that deceased Monisha was a reputed film actress and a classical dancer during the relevant time undertaking various dance programmes all over India and abroad, we are of the view that the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate. Ext.A54 shows that her income during the relevant time for eight months was Rs.1,02,120/-. Going by that calculation, the income for 12 months would come to Rs.1,53,180/-. Going by the evidence of PW.1, deceased Monisha used to get an average income of Rs.3,00,000/- for her dance programmes abroad. The evidence of PW.1 would also show that the deceased was getting Rs.10,000/- for each dance programme in Kerala and other States and she was having 30 programmes per year. Besides this, it is also testified that the remuneration of the deceased for acting in the films varied from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- and that during the year of her death she had acted in five films. The evidence of PW.1 regarding the source of income of the deceased has not been challenged by the respondents. On a moderate estimate, we find that a minimum of Rs.1,00,000/- can be taken as the annual income of the deceased from her programmes abroad which were not accounted in her income tax returns.