Judgment M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J. The appellant in each of the appeal is the third respondent in M.C.O.P.No.27 of 1998 filed by Pushpavathy, M.C.O.P. No.37 of 1998 filed by Nataraj and M.C.O.P. No.65 of 1998 filed by Indirani, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Court/Fast Track Court No.5, Coimbatore at Tiruppur. The injured are the claimants. 2. For the sake of convenience, array of parties as in the Tribunal is adopted here also. 3. As per the averments made in the petitions for compensation, the claimants ire eking out their livehood as load men. On 9. 1997, they were in the goods vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 39 3031 as load men and the vehicle was near Coimbatore Popular Spinning Mills in Coimbatore -Trichy Road. The first respondent - driver the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and consequently it capsized. The claimants as a result of the accident, sustained injuries. 4. The claimant in M.C.O.P No. 27 of 1990 namely Pushpvathy claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- end tine the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.9,37,894/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till deposit, The Claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 37 of 1998 viz., Nataraj claimed compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,07,853/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition, till deposit. The claimant in M.C.O.P. No.65 of 1998 viz., Indirani claimed compensation of RS.2,00,000/-and the Tribunal has awarded a sum of RS. 9,441/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. The third respondent/insurance Company, preferred these appeals, questioning the above said awards both on the question of negligence as well as on the quantum. 5. The claim petitions were resisted by the third respondent/insurance Company contending among other things that the claimants travelled in a goods vehicle as unauthorized passengers and therefore, the Insurance Company is exonerated from paying compensation on behalf of the owner of the vehicle. It is further contended by the third respondent that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are highly excessive and hence prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions. 6. It is further contended by the third respondent that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are highly excessive and hence prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions. 6. The Tribunal, on consideration of oral and documentary evidences, held that R.W.2-author of the complaint has not supported the case of third respondent Insurance Company and so also the police official who registered the FIR, based on the said complaint. Since the disputed portion of the FIR was not substantiated by the witness/R.W.2, examined on behalf of the third respondent-Insurance Company, the Tribunal held that it is liable to compensate the claimants. 7. Insofar as the quantum is concerned, the Tribunal found that the claimant viz., Pushpavathy suffered serious injuries on her and she had a portion of her skull was removed and she had also undergone surgery in her head as well as in her Right leg and she suffered disability of 70% and the Tribunal has also considered the evidence of P.W.6-doctor who assessed the disability. 8. Insofar as the claimant viz., Nataraj, is concerned, the Tribunal perused Exhibit P-4 discharge summary and the evidence of P.W.4-doctor Periyasamy, who assessed the disability at 20%. The Tribunal taking into consideration that due to the accident he is not in a position to use his Right hand as before, has fixed the compensation as stated above. 9. As regards the claimant viz., Indirani, the Tribunal fixed Compensation at Rs. 9,441/-with interest at the rate of 9%per annum. 10. Heard the submissions of Mr. N.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in each of the appeal and Mr. R. Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the claimants/first respondent in each o the appeal. 11. A perusal of the FIR would reveal that R.W.2 had lodged a complaint with regard to the above said accident and it has been stated that he along with his relative numbering 25 were proceeding to the temple of the family deity in Tata 407 open type van bearing Reg. No. TN-39-3031 and due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said vehicle, the accident happened, in which the occupants sustained injuries. No. TN-39-3031 and due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said vehicle, the accident happened, in which the occupants sustained injuries. Though, there is nor dispute with regard to the accident, if the FIR is made part of claim petition, and was the basis for filing claim petition, it can be looked into to find out whether the injured travelled as representatives of owner of goods or load men or gratuitous passengers. Though, R.W.2/de facto complainant has not supported the case of the third respondent Insurance Company, the fact remains that in the FIR it has been clearly stated that 25 persons were proceeding in a goods vehicle to the temple. 12. In view off the fact that in the FIR it has been clearly stated that 25 persons were proceeding in a goods vehicle to the temple, we uphold the contention of the appellant that it is not liable to pay compensation. 13. At this juncture, it is useful to refer the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Oriental Insurance Co. LTd., V. Premlata Shukla and Others (2007) 6 MLJ 669: (2007) ACJ 1928 (SC), National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Rattani and Others (2009) 1 TN MAC 103 (SC). 14. In Oriental Insurance Co. LTd v. Premlata Shukla and Others (supra), the deceased was travelling in a Tempo Trax and it collided with a truck and the Registration Number of the truck could not be noticed and the truck also could not be traced. An FIR was lodged by one of the occupants of the Tempo Trax and a case was registered under Section 304-A of the IPC against the driver of the truck. In a petition for compensation, the Tribunal dismissed the same on the ground that the claimants have failed to prove that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of Tempo Trax vehicle. The Claimants preferred, an appeal before the High Court. The High Court held that since the First Information Report have been legally not proved, the driver of Tempo Trax should be held to be guilty of driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by same, preferred an appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The High Court held that since the First Information Report have been legally not proved, the driver of Tempo Trax should be held to be guilty of driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by same, preferred an appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, it was contended that the respondents/claimants themselves relied on First Information Report, the High Court could not have ignored the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court or India held that once a part of FIR is relied upon by both parties, the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any illegality in relying upon the other part, irrespective of the contents of the documents been proved or not. The appeal preferred by the insurance Company was allowed. 15. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Rattani and Others (supra), pertaining to a case of fatal accident. In the said case, the deceased was traveling in a goods vehicle as a member of marriage party. After attending the marriage, the deceased and his other family members were returning in the said vehicle which met with an accident, resulted, in his death. An award was passed in favour of the claimant and challenging the vires of the same, the insurance company preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It was contended by the Insurance Company that as per the contents of the FIR, which forms part of the claim petition, that all the members of marriage party had travelled in a true and since they travelled in a goods vehicle, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle and consequently, pay compensation to the claimants. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the said decision, held that in the First Information Report itself has been made a part of the claim petition, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the same can be looked into for the purpose as to whether the deceased and other had travelled in goods vehicle. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the claimants and other victims of accident were travelling in a truck as gratuitous passengers and consequently insurance company was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 16. The facts and ratio laid down in those two decisions are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the claimants and other victims of accident were travelling in a truck as gratuitous passengers and consequently insurance company was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 16. The facts and ratio laid down in those two decisions are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. The FIR clearly reveal that 25 person were proceeding in a goods vehicle to the temple and simply because the de facto complainant – informant –R.W.2 in his evidence, has not supported the contents of the FIR, It cannot be eschewed in toto. When this Court read the FIR as a whole, it is crystal clear that the injured persons/claimants herein had travelled in a goods vehicle as gratuitous passengers and therefore, their contention that they travelled in the capacity of load men cannot be accepted. Therefore, we hold that the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle and consequently, not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 17. Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that this Court while granting interim orders, vide order dated 4. 2006 made in C.M.P. No. 4544 of 2006 in C.M.A. No. 1101 of 2006 (Claimant Pushpavathy), directed the appellant/Insurance Company to deposit 50% of the award amount to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.27 of 1998 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court/Fast Court No. 5, Coimbatore at Tiruppur. In C.M.P.. No. 4545 of 2006 in C.M.A.No. 1102 of 2006 (Claimant Nataraj), interim stay was granted subject to the deposit of entire award amount to the credit of M.C.O.P No. 37 of 1938. In C.M.P. No. 4546 of 2006 in C.M.A. No. 1103 of 2006 (Claimant Indirani), interim stay was granted subject to deposit of entire award amount to the credit of M.C.O.P. Nos. 65 of 1998. 18. This Court while waking the above said interim stay absolute vide order dated 17. 2006, had permitted the claimant in each case, to withdraw the entire accrued interest without furnishing security and directed the Tribunal to invest the remaining award amount with cost in Canara Bank, Tiruppur Main Branch, initially for a period of three year, renewable periodically and also permitted the claimant in each case to withdraw, the accrued interest on such investment, once in three Months directly from the bank. 19. 19. The learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant in each of the appeal had filed a memo before this Court and as per the memo, the first respondent in C.M.A. No. 1101 of 2006 has withdrawn a sum of Rs.3,13,274/-. The first respondent in C.M.A.No. 1102 of 2006 has withdrawn a sum of Rs. 71,411/-and the first respondent in C.M.A. No. 1103 of 2006 has withdrawn a sum of Rs.6,851/-. 20. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that considering, the case of the claimants sympathetically, some more amount may be added to the amounts that had already been withdrawn by the each of the claimants as the same would meet the ends of justice. Hence, we are passing the following order: (i) Since the first respondent in C.M.A.No. 1101 to 2006 viz., Pushpavathy had sustained grievous injuries on her skull, which resulted in the part removal of the skull and also sustained other grievous injuries, she is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,86,726/-apart from a sum of Rs. 3,13,274/- already withdrawn by her by way of accrued interest. (ii) In C.M.A. No. 1102 of 2006, arising out of M.C.O.P. No. 37 of 1998, the claimant viz., Nataraj, has withdrawn a sum of Rs.71,411/-by way of accrued interest. Considering the nature of injures sustained by him, he is entitled to a sum of Rs.28,589/- aggregating to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-altogether as against a sum of Rs. 1,07, 853/- awarded by the Tribunal. (iii) In C.M.A.No. 1103 of 2006 arising out of M.C.O.P. No. 65 of 1998, the claimant viz., Indirani has withdrawn a sum of Rs.6,851/-by way of accrued interest and considering the percentage of disability and nature of injury sustained by her, the Court is of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 6,851/ -is a just and fair compensation as against a sum of Rs. 9,441/- awarded by the Tribunal. 21. In the result, Civil miscellaneous appeals are allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 27, 37 and 65 of 1998 respectively, is set aside. 22. In view of the fairness shown by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we have passed the above orders, permitting each of the claimants to withdraw further amounts as indicated above. 23. 22. In view of the fairness shown by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we have passed the above orders, permitting each of the claimants to withdraw further amounts as indicated above. 23. The appellants are permitted to withdraw the balance amount lying in the deposit, after permitting the claimant namely Pushpavathy, to withdraw sum of Rs.1,86,726/-, and permitting the claimant namely Nataraj to withdraw a sum of Rs. 28,589/-. In the circumstance, there will be no order as to costs. 24. This Court place it on record, the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ Insurance company and the fairness in which he made his submissions. We also place it on record, the attitude shown by the New India Assurance Company/the appellant herein in taking note of the plight of the claimants/injured in order to arrive at a fair and reasonable compensation. Directions issued.