JUDGMENT Abdul Quddhose, J. The instant appeal has been filed by the insurance company challenging the award dated 18.06.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate at Villupuram District in M.C.O.P.No. 93 of 2006. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are as follows : (i) One Veeramani died on 25.07.2004, as a result of an accident caused by the lorry bearing registration No.TAL 5734, owned by the 6th respondent and insured with the appellant. The dependants of the deceased Veeramani are the respondents No.1 to 5 in this appeal. (ii) They preferred a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, seeking a compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/-. (iii) The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by its award dated 18.06.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.93 of 2006 directed the appellant to pay the respondents No. 1 to 5, a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of 2.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of the realization. (iv) Aggrieved by the award dated 18.06.2010 passed in MCOP.No.93 of 2006 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the instant appeal has been filed by the insurance company. 3. Heard, Mrs.R.Sreevidhya, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr.D.Senthilkumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 5. The 6th respondent has remained ex-parte, both before the Tribunal as well as this Court. 4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the deceased was a pedestrian and engaged in brick manufacturing and he is not a coolie or owner of the goods authorised to travel in the insured vehicle. 5. According to him, P.W.2 an eye witness to the accident had admitted that he did not know the name of the alleged owner who arranged the lorry. 6. According to him, the tribunal has failed to note that P.W.2 in the cross examination had admitted that, he had asked the deceased to travel with him and it was he who gave permission to the deceased to travel in the lorry and as such, the deceased was neither a coolie nor did the owner of the goods authorise him to travel. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant. 7. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant. 7. Further, she would contend that the tribunal has erred in adopting the multiplier of 18 years, instead of taking the age of the mother and ought to have adopted a multiplier of 10 years, besides, the award of conventional damages of Rs. 35,000/- requires to be scaled down. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 would contend that even though the claim was made for a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/-, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- 9. According to him, only based on the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the tribunal has passed the impugned award. He also contented that the Appellant did not examine any witness nor did they produce any documentary evidence before the Tribunal. 10. This court, after considering the materials available of the record and after examining the impugned award and after hearing the submissions of the respective counsels, observes the following: (a) The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 before the Tribunal have filed six documents namely, First Information Report, Registration Certificate, Insurance policy, vehicle permit, Driving licence, Post mortem report. They have also examined two witnesses namely, the 1st respondent in this appeal as well as an eye witness. (b) On the side of the appellant, no documentary evidence was produced and no witness was examined. The Tribunal has considered the oral and documentary evidence available on record and only thereafter, has come to the conclusion that the appellant is liable to compensate the claim of the respondent Nos.1 to 5. The Tribunal has given a clear finding based on the oral and documentary evidence that the deceased was travelling as a coolie accompanying the goods and was not a gratuitous passenger. (c) As seen from the award, no contra evidence was also produced by the appellant to disprove the contention of the claimants that the deceased was travelling as a coolie accompanying the goods in the insured vehicle. 11. In the light of the above observations, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the instant appeal and the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed. 12. It is represented that the entire amount has already been deposited by the appellant before the tribunal. 11. In the light of the above observations, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the instant appeal and the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed. 12. It is represented that the entire amount has already been deposited by the appellant before the tribunal. The respondents 1 to 5 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares as per the ratio apportioned by the tribunal on filing appropriate application.