JUDGMENT :

R. Subbiah, J.

1. The appellant in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is the fourth respondent in MCOP No. 91 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, Krishnagiri. She is the mother in law of the deceased Vanitha, who had lost her life in a motor accident that had taken place on 05.10.2014. The parents of the deceased Vanitha are the Claimants, who have filed MCOP No. 91 of 2016 and respondents 1 and 2 in C.M.A. No. 3264 of 2019. Aggrieved by the apportionment of compensation amount in between the appellant and the respondents 1 and 2 at the ratio of 1/3rd each, in and by the award dated 28.09.2018 passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

2. A Cross Objection in Cross. Obj. No. 20 of 2021 had also been filed before this Court by the Insurance Company, questioning the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 in C.M.A. No. 3264 of 2019, apart from raising other grounds on the other aspects of the award passed by the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal and the cross objection, are as follows.

4. On 05.10.2014 at about 14.00 hours, the son of the appellant herein, namely deceased Arumugam was driving the two wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 24 S 6180 having his wife Vanitha and son - Karthikeyan as pillion riders, on the extreme left side of the Krishnagiri to Dharmapuri Main Road. While they were nearing a place called Nathakottai, opposite to HP Petrol Bunk, a lorry bearing Registration No. TN 23 W 0355, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the rear side of the two wheeler, as a result of which, the deceased Arumugam lost his balance and fell down along with his wife and minor son and sustained fatal injuries. Thus, all the occupants of the two wheeler died on the spot. Hence, the respondents 1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased Vanitha, have filed MCOP No. 91 of 2016, claiming compensation of Rs. 75,00,000/- as against the owner of the lorry and its insurer. In the said claim petition, the appellant herein, who is the mother-in-law of the deceased Vanitha, was shown as fourth respondent. On completion of trial, the Tribunal has passed an award for a sum of Rs. 57,87,500/- as compensation and apportioned the amount equally among the appellant, respondents 1 and 2 viz., Rs. 19,29,000/- payable to the respondents 1 and 2 and Rs. 19,29,500/- to the appellant herein. Questioning the apportionment of compensation amount in the ratio of 1/3rd each, the present appeal in C.M.A. No. 3264 of 2019 is filed by the appellant, who is the fourth respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 91 of 2016.

5. Before the Tribunal, the appellant herein/fourth respondent in the Claim Petition filed a counter statement by taking a specific stand that, she is the surviving Class II legal heir of the deceased Vanitha as her mother-in-law. It was further stated in the counter statement that she was depending on the income of the deceased Vanitha from the date of her marriage with her son Arumugam, who also died in the same accident. The appellant was living along with the deceased Vanitha till her death in the accident. Even though she is the daughter of the respondents 1 and 2/claimants, since she was given in marriage to her son Arumugam, from that date, the appellant, her daughter in law and son were living as a joint family under one roof. According to the appellant, as per Hindu Succession Act, the appellant is the Class II legal heir of the deceased Vanitha. Since the appellant, who is the Class II legal heir is alive, the other relatives, who are not dependants and legal representatives of the deceased Vanitha, are not entitled for any compensation. Moreover, the respondent No. 2, father of the deceased Vanitha is a retired Headmaster and was receiving pension of Rs. 30,000/- per month. That apart, he owns 8-1/2 acres of land in his name. From the