JUDGMENT V.M. Velumani, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 08.01.2015, made in MCOP.No.134 of 2013, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that by mistake, the 6th respondent in the claim petition viz., United India Insurance Company Limited, was not added as a party in the appeal. Hence, the 6th respondent in the claim petition is suo motu impleaded as 8th respondent in this appeal. Mr. A. Elagno, learned counsel takes notice for the 8th respondent / United India Insurance Company Limited. 3. The appellant is the third respondent in MCOP.No.134 of 2013, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil. The respondents 1 to 3 are the claimants. The respondents 4 and 5, who are the respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition, are driver and owner of the Mahindra Logan Lorry bearing Regn. No. TN 74 P 9443. The respondents 6 and 7, who are the respondents 4 and 5 in the claim petition are driver of the Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing Regn. No.TN 38 AH 9799 involved in the accident. 4. The son of the first respondent and brother of the respondents 2 and 3 were travelled from Chennai to Nagercoil in the Mahindira Logan Car bearing Regn.No.TN 74 P 9443 belonging to the fifth respondent driven by the fourth respondent. At Madurai Ring Road Tollgate No.2, the fourth respondent drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Lorry belonging to the seventh respondent insured with the 8th respondent. 5. According to the respondents 1 to 3, the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the fifth respondent. The son of the first respondent and brother of the respondents 2 and 3 died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident and the vehicle was insured with the appellant / third respondent and filed claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- as compensation against the respondents 4 to 8 and the appellant. 6. The respondents 4 to 8 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 7. 20,00,000/- as compensation against the respondents 4 to 8 and the appellant. 6. The respondents 4 to 8 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 7. According to the appellant, the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the sixth respondent / driver of the Lorry, who parked the vehicle in the road without any signal and the respondents 6 and 7 and 8th respondent Insurance Company are liable to pay compensation. In any event, the amount awarded by the Tribunal to the respondents 1 to 3 are excessive. 8. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent examined herself as PW.1 and one Ketran, who issued Ex.P8 Salary Certificate was examined as PW.2 and 9 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9. The appellant did not let in any oral and documentary evidence. 9. 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 driver of the Car, fourth respondent herein. Further, the Tribunal considering the age and nature of work of the deceased awarded a total sum of Rs. 13,07,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 3. 10. Aggrieved by the said Award, the appellant has come out with the present appeal. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated the averments raised in the counter statement as well as the grounds raised in the appeal. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the driver of the Lorry, sixth respondent herein is responsible for accident. This submission is contrary to the materials on record. The respondents 1 to 3 let in both oral and documentary evidence to substantiate their case. The appellant or respondents 4 and 5 have not let in any evidence to disprove the contention of the respondents 1 to 3 and hence, the Tribunal considering the evidence in this regard, rightly held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the car belonging to the fourth respondent insured with the appellant. 12. Further, the Tribunal considering the materials on record, fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/- per month and awarded a sum of Rs. 10,80,000/- towards loss of income, which is just and proper. 12. Further, the Tribunal considering the materials on record, fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/- per month and awarded a sum of Rs. 10,80,000/- towards loss of income, which is just and proper. As far as the compensation awarded in other heads are concerned, which is excessive and hence, the same is set aside and the respondents 1 to 3 are entitled to a sum of Rs. 70,000/- under conventional heads. Accordingly, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is modified to a sum of Rs. 11,50,000/- (Rs.10,80,000/- + Rs. 70,000/-) together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit as compensation. 13. The appellant / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified 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 respondents 1 to 3 / claimants are permitted to withdraw their share on filing proper application before the Tribunal concerned. 14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.