(1.) Considering the fact that all these appeals have arisen from the same award passed in M.C.O.P. No. 567 of 2000 and the parties are one and the same, they have been taken up together and a common judgment is passed. For the same brevity, the parties as arrayed in C.M.A. No. 1060 of 2004 and M.C.O.P. No. 567 of 2000 have been taken up for deciding that appeals.
(2.) C.M.A. No. 1060 of 2004 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. C.M.A. Nos. 1603 of 2003 and 441 of 2004 have been filed by the Insurance Company and the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., who are the respondent Nos. 3 and 1 respectively in C.M.A. No. 1060 of 2004, challenging the liability fixed by the Tribunal by apportioning the award. Since, in these two appeals, quantum has not been challenged, we inclined to go into the same only in the appeal filed in C.M.A. No. 1060 of 2004, seeking enhancement by the claimants. It is also seen that a memo has been filed by the appellants stating that the 5th appellant, who is the mother of the deceased and the memo filed is also recorded.
(3.) Brief Facts : the appellants being the claimants are the wife and children and the mother of the deceased. The 4th appellant was minor at the time of filing the application for compensation. The accident occurred on 2nd May, 1999, while the deceased was travelling in an Ambassador Car, resulting in the collusion with the bus owned by the respondent No. 1. The deceased was working as an Assistant Manager, in the State Bank of India at the time of the accident. Considering the evidence of P.W. 2, who is an eye-witness coupled with the other material evidence including Ext P.1--F.I.R. the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car, in which the deceased was travelling as well as the driver of the bus owned by the respondent No. 1. Therefore, the Tribunal has apportioned the award between the respondent Nos. 1 and 3.