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 22.06.2020 made in M.C.O.P. No. 309 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Perambalur. 3. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 309 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Perambalur. The 1st respondents filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Kanagaraj, who died in the accident that took place on 12.11.2015. 4. According to 1st respondent, on 12.11.2015 at about 03.15 P.M. while the deceased Kanagaraj was driving the unregistered motorcycle along with one Prabakaran as pillion rider from South to North on the extreme left side of the Thuraiyur-Trichy Road near Naval tree bus stop, Pagalavadi, the driver of the Bolero vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-48Y-2003 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction, dashed against the motorcycle driven by the said Kanagaraj and caused the accident. In the accident, the said Kanagaraj was thrown out of the motorcycle and sustained severe injuries on his head and multiple injuries all over his body and died on the spot. Therefore, the 1st respondent, wife of the deceased filed the above said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the said Kanagaraj against the 2nd respondent and appellant-Insurance Company, being the owner and insurer of the Bolero vehicle respectively. The respondents 3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased Kanagaraj. 5. The 2nd respondent-owner of the Bolero Vehicle remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 6. The appellant-Insurance Company, being the insurer of the Bolero vehicle filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the 1st respondents. The appellant denied the manner of accident as alleged by the 1st respondent. According to the appellant, the deceased Kanagaraj only drove the unregistered motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner in the wrong side of the road and invited the accident. The Police registered a criminal case only against the said Kanagaraj. Further, the said Kanagaraj was not wearing helmet and also he was not possessing valid driving license at the time of accident. The Police registered a criminal case only against the said Kanagaraj. Further, the said Kanagaraj was not wearing helmet and also he was not possessing valid driving license at the time of accident. Further, the motorcycle driven by the said Kanagaraj was unregistered one and he was not authorised to drive the unregistered vehicle. The respondents 3 and 4 are not the dependants of the deceased. Hence, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents 1, 3 and 4. The appellant denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by the 1st respondent is highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 7. The 3rd respondent filed separate counter statement and the same was adopted by the 4th respondent. The 3rd respondent stated that the respondents 3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased and they are dependants on the deceased and prayed for allowing the claim petition by granting compensation. 8. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined herself as PW-1, one Ramesh, eyewitness to the accident was examined as PW-2 and 5 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P5. The appellant-Insurance Company examined two witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2 and five documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R5. 9. 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 Bolero vehicle owned by 2nd respondent and directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 12,34,800/- as compensation to respondents 1, 3 and 4. 10. To set aside the said award dated 22.06.2020 made in M.C.O.P. No. 309 of 2016, the appellant has come out with the present appeal. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased, who drove the unregistered motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Bolero vehicle owned by 2nd respondent, which was coming in the opposite direction and invited the accident. F.I.R. was registered only against the deceased. As per Ex.R3/Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, the motorcycle driven by the deceased was an unregistered one and he drove the motorcycle without valid driving license by not wearing helmet and also the said vehicle was not covered with the Insurance Policy. F.I.R. was registered only against the deceased. As per Ex.R3/Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, the motorcycle driven by the deceased was an unregistered one and he drove the motorcycle without valid driving license by not wearing helmet and also the said vehicle was not covered with the Insurance Policy. The 1st respondent herself admitted that the F.I.R. was lodged only against the deceased. The Tribunal has erroneously held that the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Bolero vehicle. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and prayed for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent made his submissions in support of the award passed by the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 13. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and perused the entire materials on record. 14. It is the case of the 1st respondent that when the deceased Kanagaraj was driving the unregistered motorcycle along with one Prabakaran as pillion rider from South to North on the extreme left side of the Thuraiyur-Trichy Road near Naval tree bus stop, Pagalavadi, the driver of the Bolero vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-48Y-2003 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction, dashed against the motorcycle driven by the said Kanagaraj and caused the accident. To prove the same, the 1st respondent examined herself as PW-1, one Ramesh, eyewitness to the accident was examined as PW-2. On the other hand, it is the case of the appellant that the deceased Kanagaraj only drove the unregistered motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner in the wrong side of the road and invited the accident. The Police registered a criminal case only against the said Kanagaraj. Further, the said Kanagaraj was not wearing helmet and also he was not possessing valid driving license at the time of accident. To prove the said contention, the appellant examined Superintendent of RTO as RW-1, Inspector of Police as RW-2 and relied on Ex.P1/F.I.R. which was registered against the deceased. 15. Further, the said Kanagaraj was not wearing helmet and also he was not possessing valid driving license at the time of accident. To prove the said contention, the appellant examined Superintendent of RTO as RW-1, Inspector of Police as RW-2 and relied on Ex.P1/F.I.R. which was registered against the deceased. 15. From the materials available on record, it is seen that the accident has occurred on 12.11.2015 at 03.15 P.M. and the said Kanagaraj died on the spot and the F.I.R. was registered against the deceased Kanagaraj on 12.11.2015 at 11.00 P.M. based on the complaint given by the driver of the Bolero vehicle owned by 2nd respondent. The driver of the Bolero vehicle has stated that the said Kanagaraj died on the spot. Taking advantage of the fact that the said Kanagaraj, rider of the motorcycle died on the spot, the driver of the Bolero vehicle owned by 2nd respondent gave a complaint to the Police against the said Kanagaraj. Based on the said complaint, F.I.R. has been registered against the said Kanagaraj. Further, RW-1 and RW-2 are not the eyewitnesses to the accident. PW-2/ eyewitness to the accident has stated that the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Bolero vehicle owned by 2nd respondent. To disprove the evidence of PW-2, the appellant has not examined the driver of the Bolero vehicle or any independent eyewitness in support of their case that the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. Further, the appellant has not proved by acceptable evidence that the said Kanagaraj was not possessing valid driving license and he was not wearing helmet at the time of accident. F.I.R. is not the conclusive proof for fixing the negligence. The Tribunal has to fix the negligence based on the evidence let in before it. The evidence on oath must be given more weightage than the materials on record. In the present case, the 1st respondent has examined one PW-2/eyewitness to the accident and proved their case that the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Bolero Vehicle owned by 2nd respondent. The evidence on oath must be given more weightage than the materials on record. In the present case, the 1st respondent has examined one PW-2/eyewitness to the accident and proved their case that the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Bolero Vehicle owned by 2nd respondent. The Tribunal considering the evidence of PW-2/eyewitness and in the absence of any contra evidence to the evidence of PW-2 on the part of the appellant, held that accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Bolero vehicle owned by 2nd respondent. There is no error in the said finding of the Tribunal. 16. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the 1st respondent claimed that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 32 years, working as Electrician and he returned from Foreign and was earning a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month. Except oral evidence, the 1st respondent has not produced 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. 6,500/- per month as notional income of the deceased and awarded a sum of Rs. 11,64,800/- as compensation towards loss of dependency, which is not excessive. The Tribunal considering entire materials on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 12,34,800/- as compensation to the respondents 1, 3 and 4 and the same is not excessive warranting interference by this Court. 17. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and a sum of Rs. 12,34,800/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the respondents 1, 3 and 4 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. 309 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Perambalur. On such deposit, the respondents 1, 3 and 4 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.