A. M. SAPRE, A. K. TIWARI, JJ. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the claimants, i. e. , legal representatives of deceased Abdul Rashid Khan under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against an award. By impugned award, the tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants. Facts in brief are these: one Abdul Rashid, aged around 59 years, a government servant, was killed on 18. 4. 2000 when he was dashed on road (bypass of Rajgarh Square, Biaora) by one moving vehicle. The F. I. R. , Exh. P2, was lodged immediately by one Soni mentioning therein the description of car, its number and colour as also make. Since the car driver ran away after dashing the deceased who died on the spot, the car was seized after about a month from a garage. ( 2 ) A claim petition was filed by widow and children of deceased, i. e. , appellants herein under section 166 of the Act claiming compensation for the death of Abdul rashid against the owner/driver/insurer of the vehicle in question. The claim was resisted by the non-applicants essentially on the ground that vehicle in question was not involved in the accident. Parties then adduced evidence. By impugned award, the Tribunal dismissed the claim holding that claimants failed to prove that vehicle in question was involved in the accident. It is against this award of dismissal, the claimants have filed appeal. ( 3 ) HEARD Mrs. Archana Kher and Mr. Sameer Verma, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. V. Dandwate, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. None for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ( 4 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and while setting aside of the award of dismissal, allow the claim petition in part by granting an award in favour of appellants (claimants/applicants ). ( 5 ) IN our view, the very fact that the f. I. R. , Exh. P2, was lodged immediately after accident mentioning therein the make of the car (Tempo Trax), its colour (white)and number 3311 was sufficient to hold that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident. ( 5 ) IN our view, the very fact that the f. I. R. , Exh. P2, was lodged immediately after accident mentioning therein the make of the car (Tempo Trax), its colour (white)and number 3311 was sufficient to hold that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident. This fact is proved by an eyewitness Majeed Khan, PW 2, who not only saw the accident but took the deceased to hospital after the accident. ( 6 ) IN our opinion, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW 2 and the version of F. I. R. , Exh. P2, which clearly implicate the vehicle in question in the accident. ( 7 ) WE are not prepared to accept and/or believe the version of DW 2 when he deposed that vehicle in question was kept in garage for repairs on the day of accident and/or even prior to it and continued to be so even thereafter. In our opinion, it was a story set up to avoid the liability. If at all, the vehicle was in garage it was after the accident for repairs but not prior to it. We have no hesitation to place reliance on the version contained in F. I. R. , Exh. P2 and the sworn testimony of PW 2 who had no interest in claimant. The said PW 2 was not in any way interested or connected with the claimants. ( 8 ) THE evidence led by non-applicants by filing some bills does not inspire confidence. They appear to have been procured for avoiding the liability. We are also not prepared to give any importance to mention of number in the F. I. R. and claim petition. When the main number of vehicle, i. e. , 3311 was mentioned in F. I. R. there was an identity which was established beyond any reasonable doubt. The same, therefore, should have been held in favour of claimants rather than in favour of non-applicants. ( 9 ) IN view of aforesaid discussion, we hold by upsetting the finding of Tribunal that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident and that non-applicants were jointly held liable for the accident because death occurred arising out of use of motor vehicle belonging to non-applicant nos. 1 and 2-respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ( 9 ) IN view of aforesaid discussion, we hold by upsetting the finding of Tribunal that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident and that non-applicants were jointly held liable for the accident because death occurred arising out of use of motor vehicle belonging to non-applicant nos. 1 and 2-respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ( 10 ) WE also hold by accepting the evidence of PW 2 that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 due to which the deceased who was standing on the road died. Since, admittedly, the vehicle in question was insured with the non-applicant No. 3-respondent No. 3 and hence, they too are liable to suffer the liability arising out of the accident and the use of the vehicle in question. ( 11 ) COMING to the question of quantum, the deceased was aged 59 years, drawing a salary of Rs. 8,355 p. m. from government service leaving dependants, widow and 5 children and taking into consideration the age 59 and applying the multiplier of 8 and after deducting 1/3rd, we feel that a total sum of Rs. 5,00,000 in lump sum or even by calculation appears to be reasonable, adequate and proper. The awarded sum to carry interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. It is payable by all the non-applicants jointly and severally. ( 12 ) IN view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part as indicated supra. Counsel fees Rs. 1,000 if certified. Appeal allowed. .