JUDGMENT V.M. VELUMANI, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Award dated 09.01.2009, made in MCOP.No.183 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/District Court, Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin. 2. The appellant/Insurance Company, who is the second respondent in MCOP.No.183 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/District Court, Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin, has filed this appeal challenging the Award, directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 4,70,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 3. The respondents 1 to 3/claimants filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation, for the death of one Raj @ Eamaraja, in the accident that took place on 13.04.2006. 3. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle belonging to the fourth respondent, insured with the appellant and awarded a sum of Rs. 4,70,000/- as compensation, directing the appellant to pay the said amount to the respondents 1 to 3. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the fourth respondent did not pay the premium for loadman and due to that, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation and only, the fourth respondent is liable to pay compensation. He further contended that the Tribunal erroneously held that the appellant is liable to pay compensation for the death of loadman, even though no premium was paid. The said contention is without merits. The Tribunal has elaborately considered the issue with regard to payment of premium and the Judgments relied on by the respondents 1 to 3/claimants, held that the appellant is liable to pay compensation, even though no premium was paid by the owner of the vehicle for two persons and the appellant is liable to pay compensation. In the grounds of appeal, though the appellant has raised a plea that amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that he is not questioning the quantum of compensation. 6. From the materials on record, it is seen that this appeal was dismissed against the fourth respondent, owner of the vehicle on 01.10.2010. 6. From the materials on record, it is seen that this appeal was dismissed against the fourth respondent, owner of the vehicle on 01.10.2010. In view of the dismissal of the appeal against the fourth respondent, it is not open to the appellant to contend that only the fourth respondent is liable to pay compensation and for ordering pay and recovery. In view of the dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the fourth respondent on 01.10.2010, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. 7. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount together with accrued interest and costs after deducting the amount already deposited if any, within a period of eight weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the respondents 1 to 3/claimants are entitled to their shares as per the appointment fixed by the Tribunal. The respondents 1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw their shares on filing proper application before the Tribunal. The share of the minor third respondent shall be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Banks under re-investment scheme, till he attains majority.