Judgment :- The appellant/3rd respondent has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nagapattinam in M.C.O.P.No.129 of 2004 dated 24.08.2004, in favour of the respondents/claimants, awarding a sum of Rs.2,80,350/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till date of payment of compensation. 2. The short facts of the claim petition are as follows;- The first claimant is the wife of the deceased, Radha @ Radhakrishnan, the 2nd and 3rd claimants are minor daughters of the deceased and the 4th and 5th claimants are parents of the deceased. The deceased was a motor vehicle driver and also a contractor in mosaic work. As such, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month. On 111. 2003, at 4.30 p.m., when the deceased was driving the vehicle namely auto bearing registration No.TN 55 E 8338 on the Velankanni Main Road, the first respondents bus bearing registration No. TN 49 N0651 driven by the second respondent/driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed behind the deceased vehicle namely Auto. The deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Nagapattinam wherein he died subsequently. Hence the above mentioned claimants have claimed a total compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- against the respondents. 3. The appellant/third respondent has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim stating that the vehicle which was involved in the accident was not insured with the insurance company and further alleged that the driver did not have valid licence. Further, the owner of the vehicle was fully aware that the deceased did not have valid licence and had still permitted him to drive. As per insurance policy, only the valid licence holder should have driven the vehicle. Further the first respondents driver had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and as such the claim against this appellant is not maintainable under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Further the appellant denied the age of the deceased, income and legal heirship of the claimants. Further the third respondent/appellant contended that the claim amount is excessive and the second respondent owner of the vehicle colluded with the claimants and remained exparte. 4. Further the appellant denied the age of the deceased, income and legal heirship of the claimants. Further the third respondent/appellant contended that the claim amount is excessive and the second respondent owner of the vehicle colluded with the claimants and remained exparte. 4. The first respondent has filed a counter statement wherein he had stated that the bus driver is a well experienced driver and the accident did not happen due to his fault. The bus driver had driven the bus from nagapattinam towards Oradipalam, and the Auto was going in front of the bus. The bus driver raised horn to overtake the bus, when the auto driver lost his control, dashed against the backside of the bus and also against the electricity post. Hence, the driver of the auto must be held solely responsible for the accident. Further, the first respondent stated that the compensation is high and the age of the deceased, occupation and income were incorrect. So, the first respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. 5. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the respondents/claimants, PW1, the first claimant was examined. On her side, six documents were marked as exhibits Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 namely i) F.I.R, ii) Postmortem certificate, iii)Vehicle inspection report bearing registration No. TN 49 N 0651, iv) Vehicle inspection report bearing registration No. TN 55 E8338, v) Legal heir certificate and vi) School certificate of deceased etc., On the respondents side RW1, one Sahayaraju, driver was examined. No documents were marked on the respondents side. 6. The learned Tribunal framed two issues; i) Who is liable to pay compensation? ii) If so, what is the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the claimants and from whom it has to be obtained? 7. After considering the claim petition, first and third respondent counter statement and evidence of the first claimant as PW1 and exhibits Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 marked through the first claimant and the first respondents driver, the learned Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the first respondents driver is responsible for the said accident. Further, the learned Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the age of the deceased was 39 years as per school certificate. Further, the learned Tribunal concluded that the second respondent vehicle has been insured with the third respondent/insurance company. Further, the second respondents vehicle driver was an employee under the first respondent. Further, the learned Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the age of the deceased was 39 years as per school certificate. Further, the learned Tribunal concluded that the second respondent vehicle has been insured with the third respondent/insurance company. Further, the second respondents vehicle driver was an employee under the first respondent. So, the third respondent/insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants as per Workmen compensation act. The learned Tribunal has taken into consideration that the wage of the deceased was Rs.100 per day and so per month it works out to Rs.3,000/-. Hence, under the workmens Compensation act, under the formula Rs.3000X 50/100 X 186.90 = Rs.2,80,350/-has been calculated as amount to be paid by the insurance company. 8. As per motor vehicle act, the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.4,03,200/- (loss of income), funeral expenses Rs.2,000/-, Loss of consortium Rs.5,000; For pain & suffering Rs.8000; in total a sum of Rs.4,18,200/- has to be paid as compensation to the claimants, in which as per the Workmens Compensation Act, the award as against the appellant/insurance company is Rs.2,80,350/- and the remaining award amount has to be paid by the Transport Corporation along with 9% interest per annum within a period of two months. The said amount awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants are to be shared by claimants as under; First claimant Rs.1,18,200/- Second and third Claimants Rs.1,00,000/- each Fourth and fifth claimants Rs.50,000/- each. Further, the learned Tribunal ordered that the 1st, 4th and 5th claimants can withdraw half of the claim amount immediately and the rest of the amount has to be deposited in a bank as fixed deposit in their respective name. 9. After considering the learned Tribunal judgment and decree, claim petition, counter statement of the third and first respondents, first claimants evidence and her documentary evidence and the first respondents oral evidence and grounds of appeal raised by the third respondent, this Court finds that the award given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is equitable and fair. Hence, the Court is not warranted to interfere with the decree and judgment passed in M.C.O.P.No.129 of 2004 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagapattinam. 10. On 20.01.2007, this civil miscellaneous appeal came before this Court along with C.M.P.No.3326 of 2005. Hence, the Court is not warranted to interfere with the decree and judgment passed in M.C.O.P.No.129 of 2004 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagapattinam. 10. On 20.01.2007, this civil miscellaneous appeal came before this Court along with C.M.P.No.3326 of 2005. This Court, directed the third respondent/appellant/Insurance Company to deposit a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-to the credit of M.A.C.T.O.P.No.129 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nagapattinam, within a period of six weeks from that date. Now, this Court dismissed the civil miscellaneous appeal C.M.A.No.629 of 2005 and confirmed the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nagapattinam in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.129 of 2004. As per the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the third respondent/appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,80,350/-as compensation. The balance amount of Rs.55,350/-(Rupees fifty five thousand three hundred and fifty only) has to be deposited by the Insurance Company to the credit of M.A.C.T.O.P.No.129 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nagapattinam, within six weeks from the date of receipt of this Order. The balance amount i.e. Rs.55,350/-will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and this interest has to be calculated from the date of filing of claim petition till payment of compensation amount. It is open to the respondent/claimants to receive the balance amount by filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law. As far as the amount that has been awarded to the minors are concerned, it should be deposited in the names of the minors in any one of the Nationalised Banks initially for a period of three years, renewable thereafter till the attainment of majority. The first respondent/guardian of the minor respondents is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued thereon, once in three months directly from the Bank till the attainment of majority of the minors. Resultantly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Nagapattinam in M.C.O.P.No.129 of 2004 is confirmed. The parties are directed to bear their own cost in this appeal.