Judgment :- 1. The appellant disputes its liability to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. For the death of one Ponnuvelu, respondents 1 to 7, who are dependants of the deceased have claimed compensation. Totally, the Tribunal awarded them Rs.3,27,000/-. 3. The appellant contended that the registration number of the lorry has not been mentioned in the FIR. The vehicle was not involved in the accident. The manner of accident pleaded is disputed. This case has been probed by the CBCID. 4. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that it is a true case of accident. Evidence was adduced. Ultimately, CBCID gave clean chit. It was not challenged by the appellant. No acceptable contra evidence as to the manner of accident has been let in by the appellant. 5. On 21.05.2000, at about 6.30 p.m., opposite to Erumapalayam Branch Road, near Manickam Thottam, the road accident had taken place. Admittedly, in the accident, the said Ponnuvelu lost his life. The FIR was lodged. Admittedly, in the FIR, the lorry number was not given. It appears to be an hit and run case. Police registered a road accident case. Investigated. Collected evidence. Ultimately, traced the lorry [TN-07-B-1445] belonging to the 8th respondent, as the offending vehicle. It has been insured with the appellant. 6. P.W.2, Mariappan, an eyewitness spoken elaborately about the manner of the accident. According to him, at the time of accident, the deceased was riding his bi-cycle, the lorry also came on the same direction, it hit against the cyclist and caused the accident. The lorry driver admitted the offence in the Magistrate Court and he was convicted (see Exs.A4 and A5). R.W.1, Elangovan, is an Investigator of the appellant and R.W.2, Rajendran, is a staff of the appellant. They are not the eyewitnesses. The evidence let in shows that the said lorry has caused the accident. The CBCID probed the matter. Ultimately, it gave the report that really the accident as stated had taken place. The report has not been challenged by the appellant before any competent Forum. In the circumstances, we concur with the conclusion of the Tribunal that the accident was caused by the driver of the insured lorry. So, the appellant is liable to pay the compensation amount. 7. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The award of the Tribunal is upheld. In the circumstances, we concur with the conclusion of the Tribunal that the accident was caused by the driver of the insured lorry. So, the appellant is liable to pay the compensation amount. 7. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The award of the Tribunal is upheld. The adult claimants shall be paid their share of amount. Other claimants on furnishing proof of they having attained their 18 years of age shall be paid their share of amount. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.