JUDGMENT : J. Nisha Banu, J. Feeling aggrieved with the award dated 14.10.2019, passed in MCOP No.1361 of 2016 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court (FAC), Namakkal, the appellants/Insurance Company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal praying to set aside the impugned award. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be denoted as per their array before the Tribunal. 3. It is a case of fatal. The petitioners are the father and mother of the deceased Rajkumar. The case of the petitioners is that on 17.12.2015 at about 1.30 pm while the deceased Rajkumar was driving Eicher Mini lorry bearing Registration No.TN 29 AS 4089, a tanker lorry bearing Registration No.TN 30 AP 0876, which was going ahead the lorry driven by Rajkumar, without making any sign suddenly applied break and stopped the tanker lorry. Due to the said act, an accident occurred. The lorry driven by the deceased Rajkumar hit over the tanker lorry and in the resultant crash, Rajkumar died on the spot.At the time of accident, the deceased Rajkumar was aged 25 years and he owned lorry and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. The 1 st respondent's vehicle was insured with the 2 nd respondent Insurance Company. Hence, the petitioners claimed a sum of Rs.40 lakhs as compensation jointly and severally from the respondents 1 and 2. 4. On the side of the petitioners, one Jagannathan and Anandan was examined as P.W.s 1 and 2 and Exs.1 to 10 were marked. On the side of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any document was exhibited. 5. The Tribunal relying on FIR-Ex.P.1 registered against the 1 st respondent driver and based on the evidence of ocular witness namely P.W.2 Anandan, concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1 st respondent driver. 6. As regards the quantum, the Tribunal has taken a notional income of Rs.15,000/- and awarded a sum of Rs.22,98,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization. Assailing the correctness of the award on the aspect of negligence and quantum, the 2 nd respondent Insurance Company preferred this appeal. 7. Mr. Arunkumar, learned counsel for the appellant / 2 nd respondent submits that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased Rajkumar. Assailing the correctness of the award on the aspect of negligence and quantum, the 2 nd respondent Insurance Company preferred this appeal. 7. Mr. Arunkumar, learned counsel for the appellant / 2 nd respondent submits that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased Rajkumar. Considering the fact that the 1 st respondent driven tanker lorry was in the way of watering the plants in the highways, the 1 st respondent driver could not be said to be negligent and caused the accident. Only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased Rajkumar, the accident occurred. The tribunal erred in holding the driver of the water tanker lorry is responsible for the accident. 8. Per contra, Mr.C.Thangaraju, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/petitioners in MCOP submits that the FIR was registered against the driver of the tanker lorry. P.W.2 ocular evidence deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1 st respondent. There is no contra evidence to the case of the petitioners. In such circumstances, there is no infirmity or irregularity on the finding of the Tribunal and he prays to dismiss the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 9. Heard both sides and perused the entire evidence available on record. 10. Ex.P1-FIR was registered against the 1 st respondent driver of the Tanker Lorry. P.W.2 deposed that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1 st respondent. Hence, the petitioners prima facie established that the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the 1 st respondent driver. Now the onus steps to the respondents to rebut the evidence of the petitioners. On the side of the respondents, no evidence was let in nor any document was marked to contradict the evidence of the petitioners side. Further, the 2 nd respondent-insurance company has not denied the factum of insurance of the 1 st respondent vehicle with it. In the circumstances, the petitioners proved the manner of accident as well as that the Tanker Lorry driven by 1 st respondent was insured with the 2 nd respondent-Insurance Company. Hence, the 2 nd respondent/appellant herein is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 11. As regards the quantum, the accident occurred in the year 2015 and the deceased was the owner cum driver. He would have earned a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. Hence, the 2 nd respondent/appellant herein is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 11. As regards the quantum, the accident occurred in the year 2015 and the deceased was the owner cum driver. He would have earned a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. The said fixation cannot be found to be excessive. Further, the compensation granted by the Tribunal under other heads appears to be just and reasonable. Therefore, finding no reasons to interfere with the Award passed by the Tribunal, this CMA is dismissed. 12. In the result, this CMA is dismissed. Appellant-insurance company is directed to pay the award amount of Rs.22,98,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit to the credit of MCOP.No.1361 of 2016 on the file of MACT, Namakkal [Additional District Court (FAC) Namakkal], less the amount if any already deposited, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the petitioners/claimants [respondents 1 and 2 herein] are entitled to withdraw the same by filing proper application. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.