Judgment : 1. The appellant / second respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2008, made in M.C.O.P.No.223 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.I, Chengalpattu. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The respondents/claimants had filed a claim petition against the Insurance Company and owner of the vehicle stating that when the first claimant's husband namely Chittibabu was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.TN21 M7129, on 06.04.2006, at about 01.20 p.m., on the G.S.T. Road, a vehicle overtook the deceased Chittibabu's motorcycle, while the motorcycle hit against the stationed lorry bearing registration No.TLS 6063. Due to this, the said Chittibabu sustained injuries and succumbed to it. Hence, they had filed a claim petition. 3. The second respondent/Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The second respondent had stated that the first respondent had not produced the insurance particulars and driving licence of driver in spite of issuance of notice. The second respondent had denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased. The second respondent had denied that the accident had been committed by the driver of the lorry and submitted that it was caused only due to negligence of rider of motorcycle. 4. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed five issues namely: i. Whether the accident occurred? ii. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the first respondent? iii. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased? Then who is liable to pay compensation? iv. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of amount? and v. To what relief are the claimants entitled to get? 5. On the side of the claimants, two witnesses were examined and four documents were marked namely FIR, postmortem certificate, Bank particulars of Velmurugan & Co., and legal heir certificate. On the side of the respondents, no one was examined and no document was marked. 6. and v. To what relief are the claimants entitled to get? 5. On the side of the claimants, two witnesses were examined and four documents were marked namely FIR, postmortem certificate, Bank particulars of Velmurugan & Co., and legal heir certificate. On the side of the respondents, no one was examined and no document was marked. 6. P.W.1 wife of the deceased had adduced evidence that when her husband had ridden the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN21 M7129, at about 01.20 p.m., on the G.S.T.Road and while he was riding the motorcycle, he had hit his vehicle against a stationed lorry and as a result, he had sustained multiple injuries and had expired. P.W.1 further stated that her husband was aged about 40 years and he was a business man selling household articles and that he had a bank account in the name of Velmurugan and Company. 7. P.W.2 eye-witness had adduced evidence that when he and his friends were coming in a Car on the same road, he had seen a tanker lorry trying to overtake a motorcycle and that due to this the rider of the motorcycle hit his vehicle against a stationed lorry. 8. On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by the claimants, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal and challenged the said award. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the driver of the lorry has not been included as a necessary party. P.W.2 eye-witness was an interested witness. The investigation officer, after thorough investigation has filed a charge sheet against the rider of the motorcycle, since the deceased had caused the said accident by his negligence. As such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. The claimants have not produced the copy of the policy and rough sketch to indicate the scene of accident. The very competent counsel further submits that in the said accident, two vehicles had been involved and as such contributory negligence has to be attributed. The Tribunal, without income proof, had assessed the compensation. As such, the impugned order is not appropriate for execution. 10. The very competent counsel further submits that in the said accident, two vehicles had been involved and as such contributory negligence has to be attributed. The Tribunal, without income proof, had assessed the compensation. As such, the impugned order is not appropriate for execution. 10. The very competent counsel for the claimants vehemently argued that P.W.2 is the eye witness and he had revealed the mode of accident. P.W.2 in his evidence had stated that one tanker lorry had tried to overtake the motorcycle driven by the deceased due to which the deceased was pressured into hitting his bike against the stationed lorry, which did not have any indication or signal. Therefore, the driver of the stationed lorry is responsible for the said accident since he had parked the lorry without putting on any indication of cautionary signals. 11. The learned counsel further submits that the claimants have marked the bank pass book to prove the income of the deceased stating that the deceased was doing business in the name and style of Velmurugan and Company and he was earning Rs.6,000/-per month. Further, the Tribunal had not granted adequate compensation under the heads of loss of earning, loss of love and affection, consortium, funeral expenses and transport expenses. 12. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. This Court is of the further view that on the side of the Insurance Company, no one was examined to rebut the claim made by the claimants regarding manner of accident. Therefore, the plea raised by the counsel for the Insurance Company that they are not liable to pay compensation is not acceptable at this stage as it is not backed by any oral or documentary evidence. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the above appeal. 13. This Court already directed the appellant Insurance Company to deposit 50% of the award amount. Now, this Court directs the appellant Insurance Company to deposit the remaining compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, as per the Tribunal order, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court. 14. 13. This Court already directed the appellant Insurance Company to deposit 50% of the award amount. Now, this Court directs the appellant Insurance Company to deposit the remaining compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, as per the Tribunal order, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court. 14. After such a deposit has been made, it is open to the first and second claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.223 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.I, Chengalpattu, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Order. The third claimant is permitted to withdraw his apportioned share amount with interest, after he attains the age of a major. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.223 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.I, Chengalpattu, dated 30.06.2008, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.