JUDGMENT V.M. Velumani, J. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 21.07.2008 made in MCOP.No.14 to 19 of 2005, respectively on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional Sub Court, Thanjavur. 2. All the appeals are arising out of common Award of the Tribunal, dated 21.07.2008 made in MCOP.Nos.14 to 19 of 2005, respectively on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional Sub Court, Thanjavur. The issue involved in all the appeals are one and the same and hence, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of by this common order. The parties are referred as per their rank in the claim petition. 3. According to the claimants, while they were returning in the Mini Door Van bearing Regn.No. TN 49 V 5316, belonging to the first respondent insured with the second respondent, after working in Agricultural field of first respondent, due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the van, the van overturned and all the claimants were injured. The claimants have stated that due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the first respondent accident occurred. The respondents are liable to pay compensation as owner and insurer of the vehicle. 4. The first respondent filed counter and denied that the claimants worked in his field and the vehicle involved in the accident. According to the first respondent, no body travelled in the vehicle on the date of accident. In any event, the vehicle insured with the second respondent, the second respondent is liable to pay compensation and amount claimed is excessive. 5. The second respondent filed counter and contended that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the van. In order to avoid cow being hit, driver suddenly turned the vehicle and that accident has been occurred. The second respondent is not liable to pay compensation as there is violation of policy and permit condition. 6. In order to avoid cow being hit, driver suddenly turned the vehicle and that accident has been occurred. The second respondent is not liable to pay compensation as there is violation of policy and permit condition. 6. The Tribunal considering the pleadings oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties held that the vehicle of the first respondent was involved in the accident and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the first respondent, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimants the Tribunal awarded various amounts to the claimants and directed the second respondent to pay compensation on behalf of the first respondent. 7. Aggrieved by the said Award, the appellant / Insurance Company has come out with the present appeals. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent / Insurance Company contended that the claimants travelled in the Mini door van in violation of policy and permit condition and hence, the second respondent is not liable to pay compensation. He further stated that the Tribunal failed to consider the contention in the claim petition and Ex.P1 - First Information Report which reveals that claimants did not travel in the vehicle as alleged by them. He further contended that the amounts claimed by them is excessive. In any event, the Tribunal ought to have awarded pay and recovery. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants in all the appeals contended that the claimants have deposed that the complaint was not lodged by them and the person who lodged a complaint is not known to them. The Tribunal has considered all the materials and nature of the injuries sustained by them in proper perspective and has awarded only a meagre amount of compensation and prayed for dismissal of these appeals. 10. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 11. The claimants had pleaded and let in evidence to prove that accident occurred while they were travelling in the vehicle belonging to the first respondent, due to the rash and negligent driving by driver of the first respondent and sustained injuries. The first respondent in the counter has denied that his vehicle was involved in the accident and nobody travelled in his vehicle on that day. The first respondent in the counter has denied that his vehicle was involved in the accident and nobody travelled in his vehicle on that day. On the contrary in his evidence, he has stated that he came to know about the accident from the driver on the same day. The said fact reveals that the first respondent's vehicle was involved in the accident and claimants sustained injuries in the accident due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the vehicle. The second respondent has alleged that there is violation of policy condition and therefore, the second respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The second respondent has not let in any evidence to substantiate their case. 12. For the above reason, the finding of the Tribunal that the second respondent / Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation on behalf of the first respondent as vehicle was insured with the second respondent / Insurance Company is valid and there is no reason to interfere with the said finding. The Tribunal has considered the evidence of Doctor and considering the nature of injuries awarded various compensation to the claimants. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal is just and proper and there is no reason to interfere with Award of the Tribunal. Further, the learned Judge has exercised his power conferred on him properly and there is no reason for interference by this Court. 13. In the result, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed, by confirming the Award dated 21.07.2008 made in MCOP.Nos.14 to 19 of 2005, respectively, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional Sub Court, Thanjavur. No costs. 14. The appellant / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount together with interest, within a period six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, after deducting the amount already deposited if any. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the said amount, on filing necessary application before the Tribunal concerned.