JUDGMENT :

(Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.)

(Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 09.05.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.111 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases), Pudukkottai.)

1. Seeking enhancement of compensation, the appellants/claimants have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the award, dated 09.05.2017 passed in M.C.O.P.No.111 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases), Pudukkottai.

2. In the said M.C.O.P, the appellants/claimants 1 & 2 are the wife and child of the deceased-George William. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.41,00,000/- on various heads. The said award is now challenged in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal only on the quantum.

3. The brief facts relevant for the consideration of the above case are that on 31.12.2013 at about 14.30 hours, the deceased-George William was riding his Hero Honda Pleasure moped bearing Registration No.TN-63-AX-4912 along with his wife/first appellant, his son/second appellant and his daughter. While he was proceeding from Pudukottai to Alangudi in Pudukottai Thirumayam NH 36 road near Enayampatti Village, his daughter asked for water. Hence, the deceased had stationed the moped on the mud road and in a sitting position, he had been giving water to his daughter and his wife and son/second petitioner were standing near to them. At that time, a Tata Sumo Victa Car bearing Registration No.TN-45-AK-8685, belonged to the second respondent was driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, came on the wrong side towards East and dashed against the moped of the deceased and capsized in the near by canal. As a result of the accident, the deceased and his daughter sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The first and second appellants sustained grievous injuries all over the body and they were taken treatment. Hence the appellants/claimants, as legal heirs of the deceased, has filed this claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.2,97,48,205/-.

4. Resisting the claim petition, the third respondent/Insurance Company has filed a counter affidavit denying the manner of the accident alleged in the petition and further contended that the deceased is also responsible for the accident by contributing his part of negligence to the accident and the quantum of compensation as claimed by the claimants is highly excessive and without any basis.

5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to Ex.P36 were marked. On the side of the respondents, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 were marked.

6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent and that the deceased and his daughter sustained injuries and due to the impact, they died. The Tribunal further held that the third respondent/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants and had awarded a total compensation of Rs.41,00,000/- under various heads.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the Tribunal was not justified in rendering its finding relating to the nature of job held by the deceased in Republic of Singapore and the income; the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the documentary evidence adduced by the claimants stating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.1,41,363.75/- in Indian Currency at the time of the accident, which is at the rate of Rs.2875 Singapore Dollar and the Tribunal ought to have found that one Singapore Dollar, at the time of the accid