Judgment :- M.Y. EQBAL, C.J. 1. This Appeal filed by the Appellants viz., the owner and the Insurer of the vehicle, is directed against the award dated 13.6.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Pondicherry in M.C.O.P. No.591 of 2000, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.64,27,000/- for the death of the deceased in a Motor Vehicle Accident. 2. The Claimants-Respondents, who are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased filed the Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming a compensation of Rs.5 Crores for the death of one Jeannine Hugetta Madaline Vuillod, who is the wife of the First Claimant and the Mother of Respondents 2 to 4. The Respondents-Claimants’ case was that on 5.9.2000 the First Claimant and the deceased were traveling in a vehicle bearing Registration No.PY-01-B-3551, which was going to Chennai Airport from Pondicherry in the East Coast Road. When the vehicle, which was a taxi was just opposite to Shasun Guest house at Pillaichavadi, a Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-25-4239 came in the opposite direction towards Pondicherry at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner hit against the Tourist Taxi, as a result of which the driver and the passengers sustained grievous injuries. The driver of the Tourist Taxi and the wife of the First Claimant died due to the said accident. The further case of the Claimants is that a Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.PY-01-D-4197 came behind the Tourist Taxi hit the rear side of the Car, in which the motor cyclist was thrown out and sustained injuries. After the said accident a Criminal case was Registered against the Lorry driver under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A, IPC in Cr. No.279/2000 by the Auroville Police Station, The Claimants’ case is that the deceased viz., the wife of the First Claimant was employed as an “Attach” in French Embassy, Jakarta, Indonesia. She was earning Rs.2 Lakhs per month and was short listed for promotion to a higher post in which she would have got Rs.5 Lakhs per month. 3. The 2nd Respondent viz., the Insurer of the Car denied the averments made in the Claim Petition. The 4th Respondent namely, Oriental Insurance Company, Vellore, who is the Insurer of the Lorry contested the claim on various grounds and stated that the amount claimed is exorbitant and disproportionate. 4. 3. The 2nd Respondent viz., the Insurer of the Car denied the averments made in the Claim Petition. The 4th Respondent namely, Oriental Insurance Company, Vellore, who is the Insurer of the Lorry contested the claim on various grounds and stated that the amount claimed is exorbitant and disproportionate. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal formulated two issues for its consideration viz.,- (1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicles bearing Registration Nos.PY-01-B-3551, TN-25-4239 and PY-01-4139 in a rash and negligent manner? (2) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to any compensation and if so, what is quantum and who is liable to pay the same? 5. While deciding Point No.1 the Tribunal held that the owner and the Insurer of the Lorry, who are the Appellants herein, are liable to pay the compensation amount. 6. While deciding Point No.2 the Tribunal considered the age of the deceased, who was 55 years of age, monthly salary which she was getting and also considered Exhibits A5, A6 and A16, which are Pay Certificates issued by the French Consulate, and found that the deceased was getting Gross Salary of 9,329.47 Franc, Expatriation Allowances at 32,291.50 Franc and other allowances. The deceased was working as an “Attache” in the French Embassy at Jakarta, Indonesia. Converting the said amount into Indian Currency, the Tribunal finally took the monthly salary at Rs.2 Lakhs per month and assessed the compensation amount on that basis. 7. Mr. Veeraraghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants mainly assailed the award on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. According to the learned Senior Counsel the Tribunal committed a serious error of law in assessing the compensation by taking Expatriation Allowance as salary, which should not have been included. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Expatriation Allowance was given to the deceased as she was in Indonesia where the cost of living is very high, and therefore, it need not be taken into account while calculating the amount of compensation. Learned Senior Counsel drawn out attention to Exhibit A5, Which is the Salary Sheet and Exhibit A16, Salary Certificate. 8. We have perused the Salary Sheet, which shows that the deceased was getting 9,329.47 France as Gross Salary, 32,291.50 Franc towards Expatriation Allowance, 1,069.00 Franc towards Exceptional Indemnity. Learned Senior Counsel drawn out attention to Exhibit A5, Which is the Salary Sheet and Exhibit A16, Salary Certificate. 8. We have perused the Salary Sheet, which shows that the deceased was getting 9,329.47 France as Gross Salary, 32,291.50 Franc towards Expatriation Allowance, 1,069.00 Franc towards Exceptional Indemnity. The total amount, which the deceased was getting, was 42,689.97 Franc. 9. PW.1, husband of the deceased produced the documents including Salary Sheets and other documents, and deposed that the deceased was working as an “Attache” in French Embassy, Jakarta, Indonesia, and was having service for more than 10 years with the French Government. He has very categorically deposed that in Indian Currency she was getting Rs.2 Lakhs per month. 10. The main ground taken by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants is that while assessing compensation the Expatriation Allowance cannot be taken into consideration. The submission made by the learned Senior Counsel has no leg to stand. Admittedly, the deceased was appointed as an “Attache” by the French Embassy and was working in Jakarta, Indonesia. “Attache” is a person, who serves as a Technical Advisor to an Embassy. The word “Expatriate Person” means a person who lives permanently in a foreign country (as per Black’s Law Dictionary). “Expatriate” means to withdraw oneself from residence or to leave one’s home country to live elsewhere. The word “Expatriate Staff” means a person whose Provident/Superannuation/Pension Fund is maintained outside the country by his Principal/Employer (as per Advance law Lexicon, III Edition by R. Ramanatha Iyer). It is, therefore, clear that the person who works as an “Attache” always remain outside his or her country and salaries are fixed accordingly. “Expatriation Allowances” are being paid to meet out the expenses for the livelihood in the country where they work. In that view of the matter, the “Expatriation Allowance” shall always be treated as a part of a salary for the persons who lives and serves in a foreign country. 11. As noticed above, PW. The husband of the deceased categorically deposed in his evidence about the monthly earning of the deceased. But, there is no cross-examination from the side of the owner of the Lorry or the Insurer of the Lorry on the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to differ with the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal. But, there is no cross-examination from the side of the owner of the Lorry or the Insurer of the Lorry on the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to differ with the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal. 12. For the reason stated above, we do not find any merit in this Appeal. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.