G. Chockalingam, J.

1. Seeking enhancement of compensation that has been awarded by the learned II Additional District Judge, Erode in M.C.O.P.No.792 of 1998, wife, minor daughter, minor son and mother of the deceased Rajendran have come up with the present appeal.

2. According to the claimants, the deceased Rajendran was a vegetable merchant cum contractor and on 7.5.1997, at about 3.30 hours, he was travelling along with the goods, he procured for his business, in the Van bearing Registration No.TN 47 C 5955 which belonged to him, insured with the fifth respondent and driven by the fourth respondent and when the driver of the Van attempted to overtake a Lorry bearing Registration No.TA E 8600 belonging to the first respondent, insured with the third respondent and driven by the second respondent swerved the vehicle and thereby the deceased who was sitting in the cabin was crushed to death. According to the claimants, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent. The claimants contend that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and claimed a total compensation of Rs.24,00,000/=.

3. The claim was resisted by the third respondent-Insurance Company by contending that only the fourth respondent was responsible for the accident and the claim is also exorbitant.

4. The fifth respondent-Insurance Company also contested the claim by contending that no additional premium was paid and therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased are not entitled to claim any amount from the fifth respondent-Insurance Company and the claim is also exorbitant.

5. On the side of the claimants, three witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and 20 documents were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.20 and on the side of the respondents, one witness was examined as R.W.1 and five documents were marked as Exs.B.1 to B.5.

6. On analysing the oral and documentary evidence, the Court below found that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the fourth respondent, but, there was no contract of insurer and insured with the fifth respondent. But, however fixed the compensation of Rs.50,000/= under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act payable by respondents 4 and 5. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants / claimants would contend that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Lorry, which came to the right side of the road resulting in the collision from behind. But, the Tribunal erroneously come to a conclusion that the driver of the Van alone was responsible for the accident and fixed the liability on the driver of the Van. The learned counsel further contended that since the deceased is the owner of the Van as also the owner of the goods and the insurance policies are also covered, for the above said liability, the Tribunal ought to have held that the fifth respondent-Insurance Company is also liable for the accident. Since there is negligence on the part of the driver of the Lorry as well as the driver of the Van, the liability has to be fixed on both the driver of the Lorry and the driver of the Van and the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation to the claimants, but the Tribunal erred in giving compensation only for the no fault liability alone. The learned counsel for the appellants / claimants further contended that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the judgment of the criminal Court in a criminal case would not bind the civil Court proceedings in claiming damages. Further, the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation considering the age and income of the deceased, but it failed to appreciate the documents filed to prove the income and age of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the Tribunal ought to have granted sufficien