JUDGMENT : Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.624 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Dharmapuri. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company to set aside the award dated 26.02.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.624 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Dharmapuri. 2. The appellant is 2nd respondent/Insurance Company in M.C.O.P.No.624 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Dharmapuri. The respondents 1 to 5 filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Venkatesan, who died in the accident that took place on 04.05.2017. 3. According to the respondents 1 to 5, on the date of accident i.e., on 04.05.2017 at 9.15 p.m., while the deceased Venkatesan was riding in his Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle on Dharmapuri – Harur road, near Gunchettipatti bus stop, the driver of the Eicher van belonging to the 6th respondent, who was coming in the opposite direction from Harur to Dharmapuri, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle driven by the said Venkatesan and caused the accident. In the accident, the said Venkatesan sustained fatal injuries and died in the hospital. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 5 filed the above claim petition claiming compensation as against the 6th respondent, owner of the Eicher van and the appellant/Insurance Company. 4. The 6th respondent, owner of the Eicher van, remained exparte before the Tribunal. 5. The appellant/Insurance Company insurer of the Eicher van filed counter statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the driver of the Eicher van belonging to the 6th respondent did not possess valid driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. The 6th respondent has to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident to the appellant. The driver of the Eicher van drove the vehicle without possessing fitness certificate and permit at the time of accident and the same is in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The deceased Venkatesan did not possess driving license to ride the motorcycle and did not wear helmet at the time of accident. The driver of the Eicher van drove the vehicle without possessing fitness certificate and permit at the time of accident and the same is in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The deceased Venkatesan did not possess driving license to ride the motorcycle and did not wear helmet at the time of accident. The accident is head on collision of two vehicles. The owner and insurer of the motorcycle were not made as parties to the claim petition and hence, the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents 1 to 5. In any event, the compensation claimed by the respondents 1 to 5 is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent, mother of the deceased, examined herself as P.W.1 and one Munusamy, eye-witness to the accident, was examined as P.W.2 and 18 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P18. The appellant/Insurance Company examined one Mr. Ravi, Junior Assistant in R.T.O., Dharmapuri, as R.W.1 and one Mr. Lakshmanakumar, Official of the Insurance Company as R.W.2 and marked four documents as Exs.R1 to R4. 7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Eicher van belonging to the 6th respondent and directed the appellant/Insurance Company being insurer of the said Eicher van to pay a sum of Rs.14,39,600/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 5 at the first instance and recover the same from the 6th respondent as he has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. 8. To set aside the said award dated 26.02.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.624 of 2017, the appellant/Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal. 9. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company raised a ground that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, at the time of arguments, restricted his argument only with regard to negligence fixed on the driver of the Eicher van belonging to the 6th respondent and liability fastened on the appellant and contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Eicher van belonging to the 6th respondent. The Tribunal overlooked the fact that the accident occurred only due to negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased. The Tribunal failed to see that F.I.R. was registered based on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, the father of the deceased, who was not an eye-witness to the accident. The evidence of P.W.2 is only an imaginary and contrary to the documentary evidence viz., Ex.P2/post-mortem certificate and Ex.R2/Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report and prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal. 10. Heard through “Video-conferencing” the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company and perused the entire materials on record. 11. It is the case of the respondents 1 to 5 that on 04.05.2017 at 9.15 p.m., while the deceased Venkatesan was riding in his motorcycle carefully on the left side of the road, the driver of the Eicher van belonging to the 6th respondent, who was coming in the opposite direction, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed on the motorcycle driven by the deceased Venkatesan and caused the accident. The said Venkatesan sustained fatal injuries in the accident and died in the hospital. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 5 filed claim petition claiming compensation for the death of Venkatesan. To prove their case, they examined the mother of the deceased as P.W.1 and one Munusamy, eye-witness to the accident as P.W.2 and marked F.I.R., which was registered against the driver of the Eicher van as Ex.P1. On the other hand, it is the case of the appellant/Insurance Company that the accident occurred only due to negligence of the deceased, who rode the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed on the Eicher van. The appellant did not examine the driver of the Eicher van or any eye-witness to substantiate their case. Further, the 6th respondent, owner of the Eicher van or his driver did not lodge any complaint against the rider of the motorcycle, the deceased Venkatesan or filed any objection to the contents of F.I.R. being registered against the driver of the Eicher van. Further, the 6th respondent, owner of the Eicher van or his driver did not lodge any complaint against the rider of the motorcycle, the deceased Venkatesan or filed any objection to the contents of F.I.R. being registered against the driver of the Eicher van. The Tribunal considering the entire materials on record and evidence of P.W.2, eye-witness, Ex.P1/F.I.R. and in the absence of any contra evidence let in by the appellant, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Eicher van and considering the fact that the 6th respondent permitted the driver to drive the Eicher van without fitness certificate and violated the policy conditions, ordered pay and recovery and directed the appellant/Insurance Company to pay compensation to the respondents 1 to 5 at the first instance and recover the same from the 6th respondent. There is no error in the said award of the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. 12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the sum of Rs.14,39,600/- 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 entire amount awarded by the Tribunal along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment 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 apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, along with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.