JUDGMENT : V.M. VELUMANI, J. 1. The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode.” 2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the award dated 31.08.2017 made in M.C.O.P. No. 827 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Namakkal. 3. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 827 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Namakkal. The respondents 1 to 5 filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Jagadeesan, who died in the accident that took place on 26.08.2012. 4. According to respondents 1 to 5, on 26.08.2012 at about 01.10 A.M. while the deceased Jagadeesan was walking on the Tiruchengode-Namakkal Road, near Wine Shop opposite, Kumaramankalam, the rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-34L-8865, drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed on the backside of the said Jagadeesan and caused the accident. In the accident, the said Jagadeesan sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the respondents filed the above said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the said Jagadeesan against the 6th respondent and appellant-Insurance Company, being the owner and insurer of the motorcycle respectively. 5. The 6th respondent-owner of the motorcycle remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 6. The appellant-Insurance Company, being the insurer of the motorcycle filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 1 to 5. The appellant denied the manner of accident as alleged by the respondents 1 to 5. According to the appellant, the deceased Jagadeesan in inebriated condition, suddenly fell down in front of the motorcycle and invited the accident. In F.I.R. the rider of the motorcycle was mentioned as Periyadurai but in the claim petition, it was mentioned that the 5th respondent drove the motorcycle. In the Accident Register it has been mentioned that the deceased was smelling alcohol and the Police also filed the final report as mistake of fact. The rider of the motorcycle was not possessing valid driving license and the 6th respondent violated the policy conditions. Hence, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. The respondents 1 to 5 have to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased by producing valid document. The rider of the motorcycle was not possessing valid driving license and the 6th respondent violated the policy conditions. Hence, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. The respondents 1 to 5 have to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased by producing valid document. The appellant denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by the respondents 1 to 5 are highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 7. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent examined himself as PW-1, one Palaniappan, eyewitness to the accident was examined as PW-2, one Selvakumar was examined as PW-3 and 7 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7. The appellant-Insurance Company examined two witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2 and four documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R4. Exs.C1 to C5 were marked as Court documents. 8. 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 motorcycle owned by 6th respondent and directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 3,49,000/- as compensation to respondents 1 to 5 at the first instance and recover the same from the 6th respondent. 9. To set aside the said award dated 31.08.2017 made in M.C.O.P. No. 827 of 2012, the appellant has come out with the present appeal. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the deceased only fell down in front of the motorcycle in an inebriated condition and invited the accident. There was no negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle owned by 6th respondent. The owner of the motorcycle violated the policy condition by allowing the rider to ride the motorcycle without possessing driving license at the time of accident. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have directed the 6th respondent to pay the compensation and ought to have exonerated the appellant from its liability. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and prayed for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the entire materials on record. 12. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and prayed for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the entire materials on record. 12. It is the case of the respondents 1 to 5 that when the deceased Jagadeesan was walking on the Tiruchengode-Namakkal Road, near Wine Shop opposite, Kumaramankalam, the rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-34L-8865, drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed on the backside of the said Jagadeesan and caused the accident. To prove the same, the 2nd respondent examined himself as PW-1, one Palaniappan, eyewitness to the accident was examined as PW-2, one Selvakumar was examined as PW-3 and marked F.I.R. as Ex.P1, which was registered against the driver of the motorcycle owned by 6th respondent and other documents. On the other hand, it is the case of the appellant that the deceased Jagadeesan in an inebriated condition, suddenly fell down in front of the motorcycle and invited the accident. To prove the said contention, the appellant examined one Dinesh, their Advicer as RW-1 and one Santhi, Assistant from Tiruchengode R.T.O. as RW-2 and marked four documents as Exs.R1 to R4. The appellant has not examined the rider of the motorcycle or any independent eyewitness to prove their case that the deceased Jagadeesan in an inebriated condition, suddenly fell down in front of the motorcycle and invited the accident. Further, as per Ex.P4/postmortem certificate, there is no iota of evidence that the said Jagadeesan was in an inebriated condition at the time of accident. Further, the appellant or the 6th respondent have not lodged any complaint against the deceased and also they have not filed any objection to the F.I.R., which was registered against the rider of the motorcycle. The Tribunal considering the evidence of PW-1, PW-2/eyewitness, Ex.P1/F.I.R and Ex.P4/postmortem certificate, held that the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle owned by 6th respondent. There is no error in the said finding of the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. 13. The Tribunal considering the evidence of PW-1, PW-2/eyewitness, Ex.P1/F.I.R and Ex.P4/postmortem certificate, held that the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle owned by 6th respondent. There is no error in the said finding of the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. 13. As far as contention of the appellant that the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant from its liability as the rider of the motorcycle was not possessing driving license at the time of accident is concerned, the appellant examined an official from R.T.O. Tiruchengode, who deposed that the rider of the motorcycle was not possessing driving license. However, the Tribunal following the judgment of this Court reported in Susiran @ Anthuvan Susai vs. Guruprasad and Another, 2013 (1) TN MAC 276 held that, if the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing driving license, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the third party/claimants at the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. The said reasoning given by the Tribunal for ordering pay and recovery is valid and there is no error in the said finding. 14. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the respondents 1 to 5 claimed that at the time of accident, the deceased was a Power Loom worker aged 65 years and was earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month. Except oral evidence, the respondents 1 to 5 have not let in any document to prove the avocation and income of the deceased. In the absence of any document with regard to avocation and income, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased and awarded a sum of Rs. 3,36,000/- as compensation towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal considering entire materials on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,49,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 5 and the same is not excessive warranting interference by this Court. 15. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and a sum of Rs. 3,49,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the respondents 1 to 5 along with interest and costs is confirmed. 3,49,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 5 and the same is not excessive warranting interference by this Court. 15. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and a sum of Rs. 3,49,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the respondents 1 to 5 along with interest and costs is confirmed. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount if any already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 827 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Namakkal, at the first instance and recover the same from the 6th respondent. On such deposit, the respondents 1 to 5 are permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award amount as per the ratio of apportionment fixed by the Tribunal along with proportionate interest and costs after adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed No costs.