JUDGMENT :- 1. The claimants / respondents have filed claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.145 of 1997, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam, against the appellant herein stating that when the deceased Rajamma was standing at Thakka Bus stop on 20.01.1996, at about 4.00 p.m., the driver of the respondent's bus bearing Registration No.TN-32-N-0050 had driven it in a negligent manner and dashed against her. As a result, the (deceased) had sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to her injuries at the hospital. 2. The Transport Corporation had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent stated that on 20.01.1996, the driver had driven the bus on the left side of the road, with normal speed. While the bus was nearing Thakka bus stop, the (deceased) had suddenly crossed the road, after passing of a lorry, which was going before the respondent's bus. Immediately, the driver of the bus had applied brake and stopped the bus, but in spite of the aged (deceased) had dashed herself against the bus and as such the accident had been invited by the deceased. The respondent further stated that another claim petition has been filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Villupuram. Further, the respondent denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of deceased. 3. On considering the averments made by both sides, the Trial Court had framed three issues namely: (1) whether the Respondents Corporation Bus driver had caused the accident by his rash and reckless driving? (2) Whether the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the claimants? and (3) what is the quantum of compensation, the claimants are entitled to get? 4. On the side of the claimants, three witnesses had been examined and 6 documents were marked namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report; Ex.P3-Postmortem report; Ex.P4-Charge sheet; Ex.P5-Letter regarding death compensation given to the beneficiaries of the deceased; and Ex.P6-Ration card. On the side of the respondent, one witness was examined and no document was marked. 5. PW1 had adduced evidence stating that she was the adopted daughter of deceased and PW2, was the deceased's husband's brother's son. PW 1 further stated that on 20.01.1996, at about 5.00 p.m., when the deceased, PW1 and PW2 were standing at Thakka bus stop, the respondent's bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against the deceased. PW 1 further stated that on 20.01.1996, at about 5.00 p.m., when the deceased, PW1 and PW2 were standing at Thakka bus stop, the respondent's bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against the deceased. PW 1 further stated that she had received a sum of Rs.3,000/-from the Government for the death of the injured person. The deceased husband was predeceased and the deceased was aged about 60 years. PW 2 and PW 3 had spoken on the same lines of PW 1 regarding manner of accident. Supporting their evidence, the above mentioned documents had been marked. 6. RW1 had adduced evidence that the deceased had suddenly crossed the road and as such she invited the said accident. 7. On considering the evidence of both sides and on perusing the documents marked by the claimant, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest. 8. Aggrieved by the said award, the Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal. The highly competent counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased herself had suddenly crossed the road and invited the accident and therefore the negligence lies only on the part of the deceased. Further, the claimants are not the legal heirs of the deceased. As such, they are not entitled to receive compensation from the claimant. 9. As per the Court records, the 1st claimant had expired and the Court notice had not been served on the 2nd claimant, since the past six years. Therefore, this Court is inclined to pass final orders and that also in favour of the claimants. Therefore, the notice need not be served on the 2nd respondent / 2nd claimant. 10. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the highly competent counsel for the Transport Corporation and on scrutinising the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. The F.I.R. and charge sheet have been filed against the driver of the bus. Further, the age of the deceased was 60 years and compensation of a sum of Rs.50,000/- granted by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, is found to be appropriate in the instant case. The F.I.R. and charge sheet have been filed against the driver of the bus. Further, the age of the deceased was 60 years and compensation of a sum of Rs.50,000/- granted by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, is found to be appropriate in the instant case. The lump sum compensation of a sum of Rs.50,000/- award has been granted under the heads of loss of earning, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and transport. 11. As per this Court records, it is seen that the Corporation had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/-. Now, this Court directs the appellant herein to deposit the balance compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, as per trial Court's findings, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 12. After such a deposit having been made, it is open to the 2nd claimant, to withdraw the said compensation amount lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.145 of 1997, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional Subordinate Judge), Virudhachalam, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order and also after production of legal heir certificate. After receipt of legal heir certificate from the 2nd claimant, the learned Judge is directed to disburse the compensation on the basis of legal heir certificate on his own accord. If more than one legal heirs are there, the learned Judge could use his discretionary power to apportion the said compensation, if he so decides. 13. In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.145 of 1997, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional Subordinate Judge), Virudhachalam, dated 14.06.2005, is confirmed. No costs.