JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant Insurance Company is the third respondent in M.C.O.P.No.60 of 2012. The respondents 1 and 2 are the claimants. The respondents 3 and 4 are the respondents 1 and 2. The respondents 5 and 6 are the respondents 4 and 5. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 filed the said Claim Petition claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakhs only) as compensation for the death of one Mercy, daughter of the respondents 1 and 2. According to the respondents 1 and 2, their daughter was aged 6 years at the time of accident. The second respondent was travelling with deceased minor daughter in an auto belonging to the fourth respondent driven by the third respondent. At that time, the bus bearing Reg. No.TN.74 N 0836 belonging to the sixth respondent started from the bus stop. Both the vehicles dashed each other and due to the rash and negligent driving of both the drivers the accident occurred. The First Information Report was registered against the driver of the auto. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both drivers the respondents 3 and 5. The auto was insured with the appellant and hence, claimed the compensation against the respondents 3 and 6 and the appellant. The appellant and the respondents 3 and 5 resisted the claim by filing the counter statement blaming the driver of other vehicle. 3. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the third respondent, the driver of the auto belonging to the fourth respondent and awarded a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- as compensation to be paid to the respondents 1 and 2. The Tribunal considering the contention of the appellant that the third respondent in violation of permit condition allowed more persons to travel in the auto, ordered the appellant to pay the compensation at the first instance and recover the same from the respondents 3 and 4. 4. Against the said award, the Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the respondents 1 and 2 in the Claim Petition and P.W.1 deposed that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the drivers of both auto and bus. 4. Against the said award, the Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the respondents 1 and 2 in the Claim Petition and P.W.1 deposed that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the drivers of both auto and bus. The Tribunal failed to consider the said averments in the Claim Petition and evidence of P.W.1 in proper perspective and erroneously fastened the entire negligence on the part of the driver of the auto, the third respondent herein in relying on the First Information Report and rough sketch and awarded the compensation which is excessive. 6. These contentions are without merits. The Tribunal, has considered all the materials on record especially, the First Information Report, rough sketch and evidence let in by the parties, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the auto. The appellant and the respondents 3 and 4 have not let in any independent witnesses to substantiate their claim that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by both the drivers. The Tribunal considering the above facts has given cogent and valid reason to hold that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the auto. There is no error in the said finding. 7. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal awarded a meagre amount for loss of income for the death of a minor girl child aged about 6 years. Except the amount awarded towards funeral expenses all other amounts are very meagre. In view of the same, there is no reason to interfere with the said award. 8. The Tribunal considering the contentions of the appellant that the fourth respondent in violation of permit condition has allowed more persons to travel and caused the accident ordered pay and recovery. There is no reason to interfere with the said finding. 9. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P.(MD) No.7796 of 2018 is closed. 10. There is no reason to interfere with the said finding. 9. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P.(MD) No.7796 of 2018 is closed. 10. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with interest and costs to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.60 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub-ordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the respondents 1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw the amount with interest by making necessary application before the Tribunal.