Judgment :- Common Judgment: C.M.A.No.3064 of 2006 has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation in the M.C.O.P.No.1812 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / VI Court of Small Causes, Chennai. C.M.A.No.1747 of 2007 has been preferred by the respondent therein in the aforesaid M.C.O.P. 2. According to the claimants on 01.03.1999 at about 1 p.m, when the deceased Kannan was proceeding in a bicycle near Nandanam poultry, the bus bearing Registration No.ATF 837 belonged to the respondent in C.M.A.No.3064 of 2006, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Chennai – 2 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, whereby the deceased sustained various injuries and after taking treatment, he died. The Death Certificate of the deceased Kannan has been produced and marked as Ex.P.8. After the accident, a case was registered by the police and the copy of the FIR was marked as Ex.P.7 by the Tribunal. 3. It is seen that the case was registered by R4, Pondy Bazaar police station on 29.03.1999 against the driver of the bus under Section 337 IPC and Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act. After the death of the injured, the first appellant herein, Lakshmi, wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. 4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants / claimants, after the motor accident, the injured Kannan was given treatment in the Government Hospital as an out patient and then admitted in the Zubeda Nursing Home, Chennai. Nearly after three years, he died. O.P. Chits issued in the name of the deceased Kannan has been marked as Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 is the Medical Certificate given by the Zubeda Hospitals, Chennai, Ex.P.3 is the medical prescription issued by Dr.E.Mohan Ram, Consultant Physician. Ex.P.4 is the discharge summary given by the medical officer, attached to the Institute of Mental Health, Chennai – 10. 5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/ claimants, due to the motor accident, the deceased Kannan sustained permanent disability and then died, therefore, the appellants are entitled to a proper compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- instead of Rs.21,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 6. Per contra, Mr. 5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/ claimants, due to the motor accident, the deceased Kannan sustained permanent disability and then died, therefore, the appellants are entitled to a proper compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- instead of Rs.21,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 6. Per contra, Mr. A. Babu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent transport corporation submitted that there is no direct nexus to show that the injured Kannan had died three years after the occurrence, only due to the injury sustained in the motor accident and further, the transport corporation has preferred cross appeal in C.M.A.No.1747 of 2007, challenging the award of compensation of Rs. 21,000/-. 7. From the available evidence, it is clear that the motor accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belong to the respondent on 01.03.1999. There is no contra evidence on the side of the respondent, only the trip sheet has been marked by the respondent which is not sufficient to disprove the case. In such circumstances, this Court has to decide only the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the claimants. Since the accident as well as the negligence on the part of the driver of the transport corporation has been established before the Tribunal, I could find no error or infirmity in the finding of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in fixing the negligence on the part of the driver of the respondent transport corporation. 8. The appellants/claimants have also produced Legal Heirship Certificate, Ex.P.9, Salary Certificate, of the deceased Ex.P.10 obtained from the employee of the deceased Kannan and therefore, the appellants/claim-ants in C.M.A.No.3064 of 2006 have established that they are the Legal Heirs and the dependents of the deceased Kannan and therefore, they are entitled to claim compensation, however, the injured died during the pendency of the M.C.O.P and the appellants/claimants have not established the alleged direct nexus between the death of the decease and the motor accident that had taken place on 01.03.1999. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that being the dependents of the deceased, the appellants would claim only the No Fault claim under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for a sum of Rs.50,000/-with proportionate interest, after deducting the amount already paid to the claimants. 9. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that being the dependents of the deceased, the appellants would claim only the No Fault claim under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for a sum of Rs.50,000/-with proportionate interest, after deducting the amount already paid to the claimants. 9. In the result, C.M.A. No.1747 of 2007 preferred by the Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Chennai is dismissed and C.M.A. No.3046 of 2006 preferred by the ap-pellants/claimants is partly allowed and thereby the respondent Metropolitan Trans-port Corporation, Chennai is directed to pay a total compensation of Rs.50,000/- with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the petition, after deducting the amount already paid to the claimants. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. 10. The respondent corporation is directed to deposit the balance sum of Rs.29,000/-with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the petition., within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 11. It is not in dispute that the appellants 2 to 4 in C.M.A.No. 3064 of 2006 are major and as such they are not dependents of the deceased and therefore, the entire amount of Rs.29,000/- with 7.5% interest shall be paid only to the first appellant, being the widow of the deceased.