Judgment : 1. The appellant / second respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 06.11.2008, made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.684 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Court), Mannargudi. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The claimants/respondents have filed the claim petition against the appellant herein and owner of the vehicle for the death of the wife of the first claimant and claimed compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The second respondent/Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The second respondent stated that the claimants had not produced the vehicle particulars namely R.C., and F.C., and permit. The second respondent denied that the vehicle had been insured with the Insurance Company. It was submitted that the driver of the vehicle did not have the valid driving licence. The averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased was also not admitted. The FIR ingredients have been misconstrued. 3. On verifying the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed three issues namely: i. Due to whose negligence was the accident caused? ii. Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation from the respondents? and iii. If so, what is the quantum of compensation? 4. On the side of the claimants, the second claimant was examined as P.W.1 and he had marked five documents namely FIR, Postmortem report, M.V.I's report and Insurance Policy. On the side of the respondents, no one was examined and no document was marked. 5. P.W.1 Boopathy had adduced evidence that on 01.04.2004, at about 06.30 p.m., when the deceased was travelling as a Coolie in the tractor trailer bearing registration No.TN 50 Z 1764, on the Kalanchimedu Main Road, the driver of the tractor drove it in a negligent manner and as a result, the deceased was thrown off the tractor and sustained injuries and succumbed to her injuries. At the time of accident, she was aged 50 years and involved in agricultural operations as a Coolie and earning Rs.3,000/-per month. 6. On considering the evidence of P.W.1 and on perusing the documents marked by him, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.3,35,000/-as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the Award, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. 7. 6. On considering the evidence of P.W.1 and on perusing the documents marked by him, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.3,35,000/-as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the Award, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. 7. The highly competent counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the negligence has been fixed on the driver of the tractor on the basis of false complaint and registered the FIR. In order to prove the accident, no independent witness was examined. The tractor was used for a purpose other than agricultural purpose and the deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger. As such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation since the policy conditions of the insurance had been violated. 8. The highly competent counsel further submits that no income proof has been produced to prove income of the deceased, but the Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs.3,12,000/-for loss of income, which is erroneous as the deceased was not an earning person and the claimants were not depending on the income of the deceased. 9. The learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal had adopted multiplier as 13 instead of 11 and also fixed the rate of interest at 9% per annum instead of 7.5 % per anum, which are erroneous. 10. On verifying the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company 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 further view that on the side of the respondents, no one was examined and no document was marked. Further, this Court is of the view that as per the evidence of P.W.1, the deceased had travelled as an agricultural coolie on the trailer, which is attached to the tractor. No evidence had been let in to show that the deceased had travelled as an unauthorised passenger. Hence, the above appeal cannot be entertained since the claim has been decided in an appropriate manner. The rate of interest remains unaltered. 11. This Court already directed the appellant Insurance Company to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest. As per the records, it is seen that the first claimant had expired. Hence, the above appeal cannot be entertained since the claim has been decided in an appropriate manner. The rate of interest remains unaltered. 11. This Court already directed the appellant Insurance Company to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest. As per the records, it is seen that the first claimant had expired. Hence, the other claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire compensation with accrued interest thereon, as per the decision of the Tribunal, lying in the credit of M.A.C.T.O.P.No.684 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Mannargudi, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Order. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the order passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.684 of 2006, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Mannargudi, dated 06.11.2008 is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.