JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, to modify the Decree and Judgment, dated 10.09.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.1707 of 2017 on the file of the learned VI Additional District Judge, Madurai. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, to modify the Decree and Judgment, dated 10.09.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.1708 of 2017 on the file of the learned VI Additional District Judge, Madurai.) 1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company to modify the Decree and Judgment, dated 10.09.2019 in M.C.O.P.Nos. 1707 & 1708 of 2017 passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Madurai. 2. It is a case of fatal accident, which took place on 17.11.2015, at about 06.30 p.m., the deceased Amirtharaj was riding his two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-58-Z-9008 and his wife Vijayalakshmi/1st claimant as a pillion rider coming in Tirumangalam to Madurai Main Road, near Koothiyargundu, opposite of the Dinamalar Daily paper office, a lorry bearing registration No.TN 45 BF 6356 drove in a rash and negligent manner in terrific speed, suddenly applied brake and the two wheeler hit behind the lorry. Due to the said accident the deceased Amirtharaj died on the spot and the 1st claimant, namely; Vijayalakshmi sustained injuries. 3. The wife of the deceased/1st claimant has filed a petitions in M.C.O.P. Nos.1707 of 2017 and 1708 of 2017 on the file of the VI Additional District Court, Madurai, seeking compensation for herself and her deceased husband. 4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants six witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 6 and marked sixteen documents as Exs.P.1 to P.16 and Ex.R.1 to 5 documents were marked and Ex.C.1 was marked. 5. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidences and the arguments of the counsel for the claimants and the insurance company and also on appreciating the evidences on record, held that the accident occurred only, due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and directed the appellant/insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.18,40,000/-as compensation for the 1st claimant's deceased husband and Rs.2,77,400/- for the 1st claimant. 6. The appellant/Insurance company has preferred these appeals. 7. Heard on either side. Perused the material documents available on record. 8. 6. The appellant/Insurance company has preferred these appeals. 7. Heard on either side. Perused the material documents available on record. 8. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed on the ground that the amount awarded by the tribunal is high and excessive. The tribunal has failed to consider the fact that the deceased has invited the accident by driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently and hitting the insured vehicle from behind. 9. (i)The claimants have filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1707 of 2017 to claim compensation for the death of the husband of the 1st claimant who died on 17.11.2015 in a road accident. The claimants have claimed a sum of Rs.70 lakhs, as compensation. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.18,40,000/-. (ii) The 1st claimant has filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1708 of 2017 to claim compensation for herself. The 1st claimant has claimed a sum of Rs.15 lakhs, as compensation. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,77,400/-. Aggrieved over the same, the Insurance company is before this Court. 10. The appellant/insurance company has raised an objection only regarding negligent. The appellant/insurance company has claimed that the deceased himself invited the accident by driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently and hitting the insured vehicle from behind. 11. As per Judgment reported in 2018(2) TNMAC 569 in the case of Sornalakshmi and two others Vs. Venkatesan, wherein this Court has fixed the negligence on the two-wheeler rider and the lorry driver on 25 : 75 basis, in a case wherein the deceased being a two-wheeler hit the lorry from behind and sustained fatal injuries. 12. The First Information Report was registered against the lorry driver which was marked as Ex.P.1. After completing investigation, charge sheet was laid against the lorry driver and the same was marked as Ex.P.11. Eye witnesses were examined as P.W.1 & P.W.2. They clearly deposed that the accident was occurred only due to the negligent of the lorry driver. The lorry driver has applied sudden break and only due to the negligent of the lorry driver the road accident was occurred. 13. There is no contra evidence on the side of the appellant herein/insurance company. Neither witness was examined nor document was marked on the side of the Appellant/Insurance Company. 14. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the negligence on the part of the lorry driver. 13. There is no contra evidence on the side of the appellant herein/insurance company. Neither witness was examined nor document was marked on the side of the Appellant/Insurance Company. 14. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the negligence on the part of the lorry driver. Without any evidence, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that the two wheeler also contributed negligence for the alleged accident. 15. This Court has no valid reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. 16. Finally, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed by confirming the Decree and Judgment, dated 10.09.2019 in M.C.O.P.No. 1707 of 2017 passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Madurai. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.