JUDGMENT V.M. Velumani, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against Award, dated 11.02.2005, passed in MCOP.No.487 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur. 2. The appellant / Insurance Company is the third respondent in MCOP.No.487 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur. Originally, the first respondent filed MCOP against the second respondent and appellant for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 11.08.2001, claiming a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The second respondent in his counter statement stated that the vehicle was insured with the appellant and not insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited. In the claim petition, the appellant was impleaded as third respondent. 4. The first respondent claimed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 11.08.2001. According to the first respondent, while he was travelling in a Lorry bearing Regn. No. TTC 7983 belonging to the second respondent insured with the appellant, as a load man, who was transporting sand, due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Lorry, the first respondent was thrown out from the Lorry and sustained injuries and he became unconscious. Subsequently, he was admitted in the hospital and his statement was recorded and First Information Report was registered. The Lorry belonging to the second respondent was insured with the appellant and hence, both the second respondent and the appellant are liable to pay compensation. 5. The second respondent in the counter statement denied the manner in which the alleged accident took place and denied the averments made against him in the claim petition. 6. The appellant filed counter statement and denied that Lorry was involved in the accident and the first respondent has to prove various averments made in the claim petition. 7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings oral and documentary evidence, held that accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Lorry belonging to the second respondent and awarded a sum of Rs. 70,000/- as compensation to the first respondent directing the appellant to pay the said sum to the first respondent. 8. Aggrieved by the said Award, the appellant / Insurance company has come out with the present appeal. 70,000/- as compensation to the first respondent directing the appellant to pay the said sum to the first respondent. 8. Aggrieved by the said Award, the appellant / Insurance company has come out with the present appeal. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to see that the police after registering the First Information Report, has not filed charge sheet against the second respondent's driver, as the police in their investigation came to the conclusion that the second respondent's vehicle was not involved in the accident and PW.1 and PW.2 have admitted that they did not know the number of the Lorry and name of the driver. He further contended that after investigation, police has held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Lorry belonging to the second respondent. He further contended that the Lorry was not involved in the accident on the ground that in the First Information Report, Registration Number of the Lorry and name of the driver was not mentioned and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that the first respondent as PW.1 and examining PW.2 - co-worker have established that the Lorry belonging to the second respondent involved in the accident and the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Lorry. He further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meagre and there is no reason to interfere with the said finding. 11. Though the second respondent entered appearance through his counsel, today there is no representation on behalf of the second respondent. 12. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record. 13. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that Lorry was not involved in the accident as alleged by the first respondent is on the ground that in First Information Report, Registration number of Lorry and name of the driver was not mentioned. From the materials on record, it is seen that the first respondent and PW.3 were working as loadmen. From the materials on record, it is seen that the first respondent and PW.3 were working as loadmen. The Tribunal has rightly held that they will not know the Registration number of the Lorry and name of the driver, in which, they worked as loadmen. Further, the Tribunal considering the entire evidence let in by the first respondent, came to the conclusion that the Lorry belonging to the second respondent insured with the appellant was involved in the accident and the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Lorry and awarded a sum of Rs. 70,000/- as compensation. The second respondent did not let in any evidence to disprove the contention of the first respondent. The second respondent after filling counter remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 14. In view of the above, there is no reason to interfere with the Award passed by Tribunal. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, by confirming the Award, dated 11.02.2005, passed in MCOP.No.487 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 15. 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 first respondent / claimant is permitted to withdraw the said amount, on filing necessary application before the Tribunal concerned.