JUDGMENT : 1. The first respondent filed M.C.O.P.No.591 of 1994 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, claiming a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation, for the injuries suffered by him in the accident that took place on 17.08.1992. According to the first respondent, on 17.08.1992 at 9.05 p.m, while he was travelling in the Bus bearing Reg.No. T.M.L.2429, belonging to the fourth respondent herein, in Dindigul-Karaikudi Road, near Varakkapatti, the driver drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner. At that time, a lorry bearing Reg.No.K.A.01-0589 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite side. Both Bus and Lorry dashed against each other. Due to the said impact, the claimant has sustained fracture on his right elbow. 2. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent/claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and one Sankaraiah was examined as P.W.2 and Doctor Chithambaram was examined as P.W.3 and marked 10 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. On behalf of the appellant and the fourth respondent, three witnesses were examined as R.W.1 to R.W.3. Six documents were marked as Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.6. 3. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties, held that the driver of the Lorry is responsible for the accident and directed the appellant to pay the compensation for the third respondent and the Tribunal considering the nature of injuries, awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation. 4. The appellant has come out with the present appeal challenging the award of the Tribunal directing the appellant to pay the compensation amount to the first respondent. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence of R.W.1 the Official of the Regional Transport Office and R.W.3 the Official of the Company and since the driver of the lorry does not have any valid and effective driving licence, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. He would further contend that as per the evidence of P.W.1, both the drivers of the Lorry and Bus are responsible for the accident and the Tribunal erred in fixing liability as against the driver of the lorry alone. 6. He would further contend that as per the evidence of P.W.1, both the drivers of the Lorry and Bus are responsible for the accident and the Tribunal erred in fixing liability as against the driver of the lorry alone. 6. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent contended that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and the Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability on the driver of the lorry and directed the appellant to pay compensation for the third respondent. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the fourth respondent and perused the materials available on record. Though the second respondent was given up, notice was wrongly sent to the second respondent. Mr.Kalayarasan, learned counsel has appeared before this Court on behalf of the second respondent. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the fourth respondent referred evidence of witnesses. From the evidence of R.W.2, it is seen that the driver of the lorry drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the right side mirror of the bus. But on the side of the appellant and third respondents, no witness was examined to prove that the driver of the bus was also responsible for the accident. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the driver of the lorry. Therefore, the Tribunal held that in the charge sheet, there is no mentioning about the fact that the driver of the lorry is not having valid driving licence and on the side of the appellant, no witness was examined to prove the said contention. Considering the evidence of R.W.2 and on perusing rough sketch and charge sheet, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the driver of the lorry is responsible for the accident. There is no error in the award of the Tribunal and the same is confirmed. 9. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest and costs to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.591 of 1994 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, if not deposited already. On such deposit, the first respondent / claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount with interest by making necessary application before the Tribunal. 10. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P.(MD) No.8667 of 2018 is closed.