JUDGMENT :

(R. POORNIMA, J.)

The appellant / Transport Corporation has filed these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals in C.M.A.(MD)Nos.97 to 99 of 2019 and 1204 of 2018 against the fair order and decretal order dated 20.04.2017 made in M.C.O.P.Nos.80, 81, 82 and 83 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar.

2. C.M.A.(MD)No.71 of 2021 has been filed against the fair order and decretal order dated 17.06.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.552 of 2011 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Pudukkottai. The claimants in the said case have also filed a cross-objection.

3. Brief facts of the petition filed by the claimants in MCOP.No.81 of 2010 before the Tribunal are as follows: (In CMA.(MD)No.1204 of 2018)

(a) The deceased Lavanya was working as an Assistant System Engineer at Tata Consultancy Services Limited in Chennai. She was earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. She was about 26 years only at the time of the accident, was very young and energetic. Petitioners 1 to 4 had lost their beloved elder sister at such a young age. Due to the crucial accident, the future of the petitioners is put in the dark.

(b) On the fateful day of 20.10.2009 at about 8:40 AM when the deceased was travelling along with her parents in a Lancer Car bearing Registration No.TN–01–AC–0148, was proceeding from Trichy to Chennai, which was driven by its driver at a normal speed observing all the traffic rules and regulations of the road. While the vehicle was nearing, Ulundurpet diversion, at the time of the accident, a bus bearing Registration No.TN–63–N–1292 came from Subway to Main Road, it was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and without noticing the oncoming vehicles from the main road and dashed the Lancer Car bearing Registration No.TN–01–A–0148 in which the deceased was travelling. Due to the crucial accident, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the body and died on the spot.

(c) The marriage between the deceased and the fourth respondent was solemnized on 14.09.2009. However due to the cruel attitude of the fourth respondent, the deceased was not able to live with the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent acted cruelly and drove away the deceased from his house. So the deceased was forced to live with her father and the marriage between the deceased and the fourth respondent has been irretrievably broken down. Hence the deceased executed a Will on 10.09.2009 in favour of her father to succeed all her estate and benefits. Further, the fourth respondent never cared about the deceased and never wanted to live with her. As per the Will and the dependency of the deceased, the petitioners are entitled to get compensation from the respondents.

(d) The deceased Lavanya was aged about 26 years at the time of the accident. She was young, energetic, and well-built in the prime of her youth. Had she survived the accident, She would have lived up to 100 years. She had a charming personality. She was working as an Assistant System Engineer in Chennai and getting a salary of Rs.50,000/- per month. Had the deceased survived the accident, then the deceased would surely have earned a monthly salary of Rs.1,00,000/-. She had no vices and she used to hand over her earnings to her parents, and it was spent towards the welfare of the petitioners by her parents. The petitioners are dependent on the income of the deceased, Lavanya. Lavanya showed much love and affection towards the petitioners, in turn the petitioners were also showing love and affection to the deceased. Further, due to the sudden demise, the whole family is suffering not only from financial difficulties but also from several mental shocks and agony. The petitioners are unable to forget their elder sister's loss and used to wake up at night times and cry for their sister. The petitioners have been spending most of their days without taking any meals bearing reminded of their sister. The petitioners are dreaming a