Judgment : 1. Ramu @ Ramadoss, aged 28, earning a sum of Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month, met with an accident on 13.05.1994. In respect of the injuries sustained, he filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. On the date of accident, Ramu @ Ramadoss was driving his Hero Honda motorcycle and at that point of time, the vehicle belonging to the first respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner and hit him from behind the vehicle. Due to the said impact, he suffered fracture and loss of muscles also. 2. The Tribunal which enquired into the claim petition, gave a finding that the driver of the Goods vehicle alone was responsible for the accident. 3. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has quantified the compensation at Rs.25,000/-. The break-up details of the compensation are as under: HEADS AMOUNT (Rs.) Extra Nourishment 3,000/- Pain and Suffering 10,000/- Permanent disablement 12,000/- Total 25,000/- 4. As the saying goes “operation success and patient died”, the Tribunal, after quantifying the compensation, dismissed the claim petition saying that the claimant did not have any driving license at the time of accident. 5. The finding of the Tribunal that just because the claimant did not have the valid driving license at the time of accident, the petition is liable to be dismissed, is under challenge in this appeal. 6. It is not the case of the Insurance Company that non-possession of the driving license by the claimant in any way contributed for the cause of accident. There is a clear finding given that the accident took place only on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the Goods vehicle. Therefore, when there was no negligence proved on the part of the claimant, nor there is a finding that non-possession of driving license was in any way responsible for the accident, the Tribunal is not justified in dismissing the petition on the ground that the claimant did not possess any driving license. It is immaterial as to whether the claimant was possessing the driving license or not, when the Tribunal had given a finding that the negligence was on the part of the driver of Goods vehicle. 7. It is immaterial as to whether the claimant was possessing the driving license or not, when the Tribunal had given a finding that the negligence was on the part of the driver of Goods vehicle. 7. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the grievance of the claimant that the Tribunal has not awarded just compensation to the claimant. 8. During the pendency of the claim petition, the injured Ramu @ Ramadoss died and the legal representatives have been brought on record. 9. It is the case of the Insurance Company that the appeal with regard to enhancement of compensation is not at all maintainable and in support of its contention, the decision reported in (2007) 2 MLJ 633 (Ramu (died) v. H.Ramachandran), was relied upon, wherein it has been held that the legal representatives of the deceased cannot prosecute or proceed with the appeal when the appeal was with reference to enhancement of compensation which could have been awarded only to the injured and not to the legal representatives. This decision is directly on the point. Therefore, the legal representatives of the claimant will not be entitled to make a claim for enhancement of compensation at this stage. Therefore, the claim for enhancement of compensation cannot be entertained. 10. But the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.25,000/- is confirmed and the finding of the Tribunal that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed is set aside. 11. During the pendency of the appeal, it is stated that the mother Velammal (of the injured) also died and the only person available to receive the compensation is the father of the claimant. Therefore, it is made clear that the entire amount of compensation is payable to the second appellant Natarajan. 12. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that no interest is payable for the period during which this appeal has been dismissed, ie. 06.08.2010 to 26.08.2014. This contention may appear to be reasonable apparently looking into it, but when the matter had been listed after 5 years after the filing in 2005, probably the counsel would not have noticed the list and that could have been the reason for dismissal. 13. In any event, this contention should have been raised at the time of restoration itself. This contention may appear to be reasonable apparently looking into it, but when the matter had been listed after 5 years after the filing in 2005, probably the counsel would not have noticed the list and that could have been the reason for dismissal. 13. In any event, this contention should have been raised at the time of restoration itself. Therefore, the claim made by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company cannot be accepted at this stage. 14. Therefore, the amount payable is Rs.25,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of payment till the date of deposit. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation as confirmed by this Court, less the amount if any already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the surviving claimant, Natarajan, will be permitted to withdraw the same. 15. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.