1. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, dated 22.04.2009 made in MCOP.No.347 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Bhavani, the petitioners/claimants has come forward with this present appeal to enhanced the award amount.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to in this judgment as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners is that on 02.12.2006, at about 11.00 hours, while the deceased was proceeding in his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-36-K-1234, along with his wife, in Edappady to Kannangkadu Road, near Vellarivelli Privu, the Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-33-Z-6773 belonging to the second respondent and insured with the third respondent, came in the opposite direction at high speed dashed against the two wheeler which the deceased was riding, resulting in grievous injuries to the deceased as well as his wife who is the first petitioner herein. Subsequently, the husband of the first petitioner died on 18.12.2006. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry owned by the second respondent. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 45 years and as employ of TNEB, was getting a salary of Rs.11,431/-. The petitioners who are the wife, children and mother of the deceased were dependents on the earning of the deceased. Hence, the petitioners sought for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents who are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

4. On the other hand, opposing the claim petition, the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter contending that the accident does not occur in the manner alleged by the petitioners. The negligence of the second respondent lorry driver is not the cause for the accident. It is only due to rash and negligent driving by the deceased, the occurrence took place. As the deceased himself is tort-feaser, no amount is payable by the respondents. The claim of the petitioners is exorbitant. The claim of the petitioner that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.11,431/- per month is not correct and his net salary was only Rs.5,322/-. Thus, the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. Before the Tribunal, the petitioners examined P.W.1 and produced documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 to substantiate their claim. On the side of the respondents, neither oral nor the documentary evidence was let in.

6. The Tribunal, on the basis of available evidence on record, found the negligence of the second respondent lorry driver alone cased the accident and awarded a sum of Rs.16,13,200/- as compensation to the petitioners. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners/claimants have come forward with the present appeal.

7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners/claimants and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent-Insurance Company and perused the materials available on record.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/Petitioners/Claimants contends that the Tribunal failed to provide any amount for future prospects of the deceased. The Tribunal also failed to award proper compensation inspite of evidence produced by the petitioners about the age and income of the deceased. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is not correct. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, the petitioners seek to enhancement of the award passed by the Tribunal.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company contends that the Tribunal wrongly fixed the negligence on the part of the second respondent lorry driver, while the accident took place only due to the negligence of the deceased. The award passed by the Tribuna