A.S. Oka. J.-The appellant, who are the claimants in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 (for a short, hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") have preferred this appeal taking exception to the Judgment and Award dated 12th October, 2004 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. South Goa, Margao.

2. One Sebastiao Fernandes died following the injuries sustained in a motor accident which took place on 22nd March, 1999 at about 5.20 p.m. The deceased was proceeding from Tilamol to Sanvordem by his scooter. When he reached Sonfatar, a bus gave a dash to him. The bus came from the rear side of the scooter and as a result of the dash given by the bus the deceased was knocked down. The deceased sustained serious injuries and while he was being taken to the hospital he died. The first respondent was driving the said bus at the time of the accident. The second respondent is the owner of the bus and the third respondent is the insurer of the bus.

3. In the claim petition the appellants claimed that at the time of the death the age of the deceased was 52 years. It is alleged that the deceased was working on board of the ship of M/s. Wallem Shipmanagement Limited. Hong Kong and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 45.000/-. It is stated that at the time of the death of the deceased the age of the first appellant the widow of the deceased was 46 years.

4. The second appellant who is the daughter of the deceased was a student at the relevant time. The claim petition was contested by the third respondent by contending that the bus was being driven at a normal speed and in fact the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased himself. It was contended that the deceased was not possessing a valid driving licence. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the first respondent. Out of the claim amount of Rs.25.00,000/.-. the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 1.95.000/-. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was nothing on record to show that on the date of death, the deceased was in regular employment. The Tribunal has taken a sum of Rs. 15.000/- as notional yearly income of the deceased on the basis of the second schedule to the said Act. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 11 and granted a sum of Rs. 10.000/- each on account of loss of consortium funeral expenses and loss of estate to the deceased. That is why the present appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking further compensation of Rs.23.05.000/-.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has taken us through the pleadings notes of evidence and the documents on record. Invited our attention to the Salary Certificate dated 10.9.1999. which is at exhibit AW.1 /A. He submitted that the said certificate shows that the deceased was employed as Chief Cook on the board of vessels of M/s. Wallem Shipmanagement Limited, Hong Kong. He pointed out that the certificate records that for the financial year 1998-99 the total remuneration payable was US$ 10.315. He submitted that the deceased used to be on the board of vessels for a period of 6 months. He submitted that the deceased was scheduled to go on the board of a vessel on 1st April. 1999. He pointed out that considering the then prevailing currency rates on the date of the accident the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 45.000/-. He invited attention of the Court to the document at Exhibit 19(B). He submitted that though the said document has been exhibited by consent of the parties the Tribunal has clearly ignored the same. He submitted the said document shows that the deceased was in the employment right from 29.7.1969. He submitted that the document is "continuous certificate of discharge" issued by the Shipping Master. He submitted that there was enough evidence on record to show that the deceased was working from the year 1969 on the Board of various vessels as a