Judgment : 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgement and decree passed in M.A.C.O.P.No.2619 of 2001, dated 28.10.2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Chief Judicial Magistrate Court), Tiruchirappalli. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company. There is no representation for the respondents. 3. On behalf of the minor first respondent, his father as a guardian, has filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained in the accident that took place on 1.6.2001. 4. The Tribunal after hearing both sides and on a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the claimant, held that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent vehicle driver and therefore the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the first respondent as insurer of the second respondent vehicle. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has considered the nature of injuries and other factors and awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- and directed the appellant to deposit the above said amount. 5. Aggrieved over the above said award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant Insurance Company has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the second respondent vehicle not involved in this case and a false complaint has been given to the police after two days. Further, the learned counsel pointed out that from the evidence of P.W.1/father of the claimant itself reveal that the second respondent vehicle is not involved in the accident and therefore the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. The learned counsel further pointed out that the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is also exorbitant. 7. Admittedly, on the side of the appellant/Insurance Company or on the side of the second respondent/owner of the vehicle, no oral or documentary evience was adduced. On the side of the claimant examined one witness, the guardian of the minor claimant and marked three documents. On a perusal of Ex.P1 – copy of First Information Report and Ex.P3-Criminal Court Judgement reveal that the driver of the second respondent vehicle admitted the negligent driving and also the involvement of the vehicle and paid the fine amount. On the side of the claimant examined one witness, the guardian of the minor claimant and marked three documents. On a perusal of Ex.P1 – copy of First Information Report and Ex.P3-Criminal Court Judgement reveal that the driver of the second respondent vehicle admitted the negligent driving and also the involvement of the vehicle and paid the fine amount. Therefore the trial Court has discussed about the oral evidence of P.W.1 and also considered Ex.P3 judgement and finally held that the accident has occurred as pleaded in the claim petition. 8. Further, on the side of the appellant has not examined any witness and also not marked any document to prove the contention that no such accident has occrred as alleged in the claim petition and second respondent vehicle also not involved in the accident. No reason has been assigned by the appellant in not examining any witness, particularly, the concerned police officials who registered the criminal case. Therefore the trial Court has correctly considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the claimant and no contra evidence on the side of the appellant/Insurance Company and finally held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent vehicle driver and hence the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. Therefore there is no need to interfere with the above said finding. 9. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has correctly considered the nature of injuries sustained by the minor claimant and taking treatment and other factors, compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- was awarded. The above said amount was not excessive as contended by the appellant. Further the appellant has already deposited the entire award amount and part of the above said deposited award amount has been withdrawn by the claimant. In the above said circumstances, there is no need to interfere with the above said correct finding of the Tribunal. 10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.