Judgment :- In this appeal, the Insurance Company, namely, New India Assurance Company, mainly disputes the negligence question, consequently, its liability to pay the compensation amount to the claimants under the award of the Tribunal. 2. It is not in dispute that the road accident had taken place on 14.4.2002. It is also not in dispute that Andavan died of injuries sustained in the road accident. Claimants 1 to 5, who are respondents 1 to 5 in this appeal are dependents of the deceased. 3. The Yamaha motor bike TN 21 W 2046 is involved in this accident belongs to 7th respondent. At the time of accident, there is policy coverage for this vehicle with the appellant. Totally, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.4,92,000/-. 4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, at the time, when the accident took place, actually the motor bike was driven by Andavan, (deceased) and Mannar (6th respondent) had travelled in the bike only as a pillion-rider. The very accident was due to the rash and negligent riding of the bike by the deceased. So, for his own negligence, compensation cannot be granted. 5. However, the learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the oral and documentary evidence let in and the evidence of P.W.2 would clearly show that at the time of accident, the bike was driven by the said Mannar. Since the pillion-rider Andavan was seriously wounded, Mannar gave the FIR with coloured version. 6. Now from the rival submissions, what is to be seen is that at the time of accident, the Yamaha motor bike was driven by whom, whether it was by Andavan or by Mannar? 7. The fact that on 14.4.2002, at about 2.30 p.m., on the Vellore-Chennai High Road, near Pulianthangal village, the road accident had taken place is not controverted. At that time, the Yamaha bike carried Andavan and Mannar is also not controverted. 8. The FIR, Ex.P.1 has been lodged by Mannar wherein he had stated that at the time of accident, the bike was driven by Andavan and he had travelled in it only as a pillion-rider. Mannar has not been examined as a witness in this case. 9. The Insurance Company had examined R.W.1, Rajasekaran. He had not seen the accident. The company also examined R.W.2, Ekambaram, Head Constable. He had also not seen the accident. Mannar has not been examined as a witness in this case. 9. The Insurance Company had examined R.W.1, Rajasekaran. He had not seen the accident. The company also examined R.W.2, Ekambaram, Head Constable. He had also not seen the accident. Their evidence would not show that actually at the time of accident who had driven the motor bike. 10. Since in the FIR, the deceased Andavan had been named as an accused and as he died, the charge(allegation) against him abated and thus, the Police has closed the case and filed Ex.R1 Negative Final Report. Police did not file positive Final Report after collecting evidence that deceased Andavan had driven the motor bike and he had caused the accident. Even then the Tribunal has to determine independently the question of negligence based on the evidence adduced before it. 11. In this case, P.W.1, Lakshmi, the first claimant, is the widow of the deceased. She is not an eye witness to the accident. Her evidence is not helpful to resolve the controversy before us. The next witness, P.W.2, Mariadoss has been examined as an eye witness to the occurrence. He is an independent person. 12. Admittedly, in this accident, Andavan sustained serious head injury and he died out of that. Mannar, the 6th respondent did not sustain any major injury. According to P.W.2, at the time of accident, he was riding his bicycle and the motor bike came from the opposite direction, since the bike rider had applied sudden brake the bike capsized into a road side ditch, the rider of the bike sustained simple injury, however, the pillion-rider sustained serious head injury and shed blood profusely. We recall here again that Andavan had sustained serious head injury and Mannar did not suffer any notable injury. During his cross-examination, P.W.2 had also stated that when he questioned the bike rider, he told him that he is Mannar. 13. The bike owner, Sathish Kumar (7th respondent) and Mannar (6th respondent) have remained exparte. The Insurance Company did not take any steps to produce them before the Tribunal to speak to its version of manner of accident. Avoiding of the witness box by them goes against the version of the Insurance Company and it strengthens the version of the manner of accident pleaded by the claimants. The Insurance Company did not take any steps to produce them before the Tribunal to speak to its version of manner of accident. Avoiding of the witness box by them goes against the version of the Insurance Company and it strengthens the version of the manner of accident pleaded by the claimants. Since Andavan was seriously injured, he was taken to the hospital at a critical condition, he had to battle for his life and taking advantage of this sorrowful situation, Mannar had lodged the FIR with the police with embellished version and tried to exculpate himself. 14. Thus, the analysis of the evidence would clearly show that at the time of accident, the motor bike was driven by none other than Mannar and Andavan had just travelled in the bike as a pillion-rider. The accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of the insured motor bike by Mannar. 15. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The award of the Tribunal is upheld. The appellant shall deposit the entire compensation amount, if not already deposited, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The adult claimants shall be paid their respective share of amount. The minors' share of amount shall be paid to them on their attaining majority. The interest on the minor's deposit shall be regularly paid to the first respondent. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.