Compensation for deceased employed abroad should be adjusted for foreign income conversion, economic disparity, future prospects, and deductions for personal expenses as per legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

1. The Insurance Company is the appellant herein. Challenging the award in M.C.O.P.No.387 of 2016 dated 30.07.2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Court, Pudukottai, the appellant has filed this appeal on the ground of negligence and quantum.

2. For the sake convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

3. As many as six MCOPs namely 387, 388, 389, 390, 391 &429 of 2016 were filed before the said Tribunal claiming compensation. MCOP No.387 of 2016 was filed by the wife and children of the deceased Akbar Ali, MCOP No.388 of 2016 by Ramzan Begam, wife of deceased Akbar Ali for the injuries sustained by her while riding as a pillion rider in the two wheeler. The passengers who travelled in the offending vehicle, i.e. Private Bus, namely Muthumani, Mallika, Alagammal and Kasi filed MCOP Nos.389, 390, 391 & 429 of 2016 respectively which met with an accident with the two wheeler driven by the said Akbar Ali.

4. All the claim petitions in MCOP Nos.387, 388, 389, 390, 391 & 429 of 2016 emerge out of the same accident and hence, a joint trial was ordered and the evidence with respect to the above case has been recorded in MCOP No.387 of 2016.

5.........

(a) In the counter statement, the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company of the private bus has specifically raised a plea that the accident has taken place due to the contributory negligence of the said Akbar Ali who died in the accident. The second respondent namely the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (appellant herein) filed counter statement before the Tribunal that the accident has taken place in the middle portion of the road and the 3^rd respondent vehicle (tipper lorry having Regn.No.TN23 AP 4216) came in a rash and negligent manner and due to the contributory negligence of the driver of the bus as well as the driver of the third respondent lorry, the accident has taken place and third respondent's driver has died in the accident. The two-wheeler rider by name Akbar Ali also died in the accident and denied the amount of compensation.

(b) The third respondent/owner of the lorry has filed separate counter statement alleging that the driver of the third respondent lorry died on the spot and the accident occurred only because of the negligent act of the Alagarmalayaan Private Bus Services and hence they are not liable to pay the compensation and his driver Isithamilan had valid driving licence and also valid badge endorsement on the date of accident and there is a valid insurance with the 4^th respondent /Royal Sundaram Insurance Company. The 4^th respondent filed separate counter on the similar lines.

(c) Before the Tribunal, various claim petitioners were examined as PW1 to PW5 and Exs.P1 to P32 were marked. On the side of the respondents, RW1 & RW2 were examined and copy of charge sheet against the first respondent vehicle was marked as Ex.R1.

6. The Trial Court, taking into consideration the evidence of PW3, PW4 & PW5 who are all the passengers in the first respondent bus came to the conclusion that the accident has taken place only due to the rash and negligence driving by the first respondent driver while driving the private bus bearing Regn.No.TN63 AT 2599 and the first respondent vehicle is duly insured with the second respondent insurance company. As per Exs.P7 & P9, third respondent lorry was insured with the 4^th respondent / Royal Sundaram Insurance Company.

7. Based upon the oral evidence of the injured, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving by the first respondent bus driver which is insured with the second respondent / Insurance company and according