JUDGMENT : A.M. Basheer Ahamed, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.1702 of 2002, dated 9th Day of February 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. 2. The respondent herein filed M.C.O.P.No.1702 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, claiming compensation for Rs.4,00,000/-, for the death of Sister Alangara Mary, belonged to St.Maria Auxilium Sisters's Congress, K.Kallikudi, Tiruchi, who died in a fatal accident, which occurred on 01.03.2002, at about 8.00 p.m., while she was riding a Moped two wheeler, bearing Registration No.TN-45-Q-9006 in which, Sister Roseline Joseph travelled as a pillion rider from North to South in Trichy - Dindigul main road and the bus, bearing Registration No. TN-45-N-1316, belonging to the State Transport Corporation, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the said two wheeler and due to the impact of the said accident, the pillion rider sustained severe injuries and the rider of the two wheeler also sustained severe injuries and died on the way to the Hospital. 3. The pillion rider, who sustained injuries in the said accident filed M.C.O.P.No.1393 of 2002, for compensation and the respondent herein filed M.C.O.P.No.1702 of 2002, claiming compensation for the death of the Sister Alangara Mary. The Tribunal tried M.C.O.P.No.1393 of 2002 and M.C.O.P.No.1702 of 2002 jointly and a common award was passed in its order, dated 09.02.2009, directing the State Transport Corporation to pay the compensation to the claimants respectively. 4. Aggrieved by the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1702 of 2002, the respondent in the said claim petition filed the present appeal before this Court mainly disputing the locus standi of the respondent herein to claim compensation, as legal representative/dependents of the deceased Sister Alangara Mary, who died in the fatal accident and also the findings regarding the entire negligence upon the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus in the accident and also the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. The appellant in its counter filed before the Tribunal denying the dependency stating that the claimant is not entitled for any claim, since the claimant is one of the Sister in the same Society. On perusal of the claim petition the claimant is styled as 'St.Maria Auxilium Sisters's Congress', registered by its Mother General Sister Animariya. 5. The appellant in its counter filed before the Tribunal denying the dependency stating that the claimant is not entitled for any claim, since the claimant is one of the Sister in the same Society. On perusal of the claim petition the claimant is styled as 'St.Maria Auxilium Sisters's Congress', registered by its Mother General Sister Animariya. Hence, the claimant in the claim petition is a service Society/Religious Organization, Domnic Xavie House, K.Kallikudi, Ramji Nagar, Trichy-9. The Sister, who represent the said service organization was examined as P.W.1 before the Tribunal. 6. As per the case of the claimant, the deceased drove the Moped Vehicle, bearing Registration No. TN-45-Q-9006 along with P.W.1/injured, as pillion rider, on the date of the accident and the driver of the bus, bearing Registration No. TN-45-N-1368, belonging to the State Transport Corporation, drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit the moped vehicle on it behind and due to the impact of the accident P.W.2/pillion rider sustained severe injuries and the rider of the Moped died in the accident. There is no specific allegations questioning the locus standi in filing the claim petition, but questioning the dependency of the claimant upon the deceased, who died in the motor accident. However, the Tribunal framed an issue regarding the entitlement to claim compensation by the claimant for the death of Sister Alangara Mary. 7. The Mother General, representing 'St.Maria Auxilium Sisters's Congress', Tiruchy/Religious organization was examined as P.W.2, who deposed on filing proof affidavit during her evidence that the deceased was doing social service, as a Member of religious organization, prior to the death in the accident. Such fact is not denied by the appellant before the Tribunal. Though admittedly, no records were produced to show that the deceased was a member of the religious organization doing social services to the people, the Tribunal held after considering Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and also Section 2(11) of C.P.C., that the claim petition filed by the Mother General of the Religious organization claiming compensation for the death of the deceased member, who is one of the sister of the claimant organization. Admittedly, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Transport Corporation of India Vs. ESI Corporation and Another, (2000) 1 MadLJ 128 referred by the Tribunal in its Award is not admittedly applicable to the case on hand. 8. Admittedly, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Transport Corporation of India Vs. ESI Corporation and Another, (2000) 1 MadLJ 128 referred by the Tribunal in its Award is not admittedly applicable to the case on hand. 8. The deceased joined the claimant organization and did services to the Society after denouncing her family and was working as Sister under the claimant organization/society prior to the date of accident. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant organization suffered considerable loss due to the death of the voluntary worker in a fatal accident. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that a claimant religious organization cannot be a legal representative of the deceased claiming compensation due to death in the accident and there was an employer and employee relationship between the deceased and claimant and one employer cannot be a legal heir of the deceased employee. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent would rely upon the decision of the Apex Court in Montfort Brothers of Gabriel & Anr Vs. United India Insurance & Anr., etc., (2014) 1 CTC 886 as regards the maintainability of the claim petition filed by the respondent herein, wherein it has been held that religious organization may suffer considerable loss due to the death of voluntary worker and the Act does not define the term legal representative, but the term 'legal representative' as having assigned in Section 2(11) of CPC., which is as follows:- Section 2(11) 'Legal representative' may a person, who in law represents the estate of a deceased person and includes any person, who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued.? 11. Also Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which deals with the Application for Compensation before the Tribunal. 12. There is no evidence on the side of the appellant/respondent in the claim petition that the deceased was having other legal representative on the date of the accident. Considering the above facts and also the decision of the Apex Court, 2014 1 CTC 886 , relied on by the respondent herein, the respondent has locus standi and also entitled to maintain the claim petition, as legal representative of the deceased Sister of the claimant religious organization. 13. Considering the above facts and also the decision of the Apex Court, 2014 1 CTC 886 , relied on by the respondent herein, the respondent has locus standi and also entitled to maintain the claim petition, as legal representative of the deceased Sister of the claimant religious organization. 13. Regarding the quantum of compensation awarded, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4000/- in the absence of record in respect of income and also considering the age of the deceased, as per the postmortem report of the deceased, and awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, as loss of income due to the death of the deceased to the Religious Organization and also a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, totally a sum of Rs.3,22,000/-, along with interest at 7.5% per annum. Such compensation is not in higher side, as contended by the appellant herein. The evidence produced on the side of the claimant regarding the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus at the time of occurrence is also considered by the Tribunal and held that the driver of the bus is responsible for the accident for his rash and negligent manner of driving at the time of accident. There is no valid reasons to interfere with the quantum of compensation and the findings of the Tribunal in its award, dated 09.02.2009, in M.C.O.P.No.1702 of 2002. 14. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed, by confirming the Judgment and Decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.1702 of 2002, dated 9th Day of February 2009, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The appellant Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the amount, as awarded by the Tribunal, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, less the amount already deposited, if any. However, there shall be no order as to costs.