Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the insurance company against the award of the Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs.4,19,000 on account of death of Inderjit Singh. 2. The case of the claimants is that on 5.7.2003 at 5.40 p. m. , the deceased was travelling on a scooter from Sirsa to Ding. He was hit by vehicle driven rashly and negligently by Mange Lal resulting in the death of Inderjit Singh and injuries to Gurbachan Singh, claimant, son of the deceased. The driver ran away. The deceased was medically examined and treated for about 40 days in different hospitals and finally died on account of injuries suffered on 14.8.2003. Post-mortem examination was conducted and F. I. R. dated 14.8.2003 was lodged. 3. The driver and owner of the vehicle as well as the insurance company contested the claim. 4. Following issues were framed: (1) Whether the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of truck-trailer No. HR 38e 9871 resulting in the death of Inderjit singh as alleged? OPP (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive any compensation amount? If so, how much and from whom? OPP (3) Whether the petitioners have no cause of action to file the present petition? OPR (4) Whether the claim application is bad for mis-joinder of parties and nonjoinder of necessary parties? OPR (5) Whether the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petition? opr (6) Whether the claim petition is not maintainable? OPR (7) Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive a truck at the time of alleged accident? If so, to what effect? opr (8) Relief. 5. The claimants examined Gurbachan singh, PW 3; Dr. S. C. Manchanda, PW 1; Dr. V. K. Gupta, PW 2 and placed on record documents Exhs. PA to PZ/3. 6. The Tribunal held that evidence of pw 3, Gurbachan Singh was reliable and could not be rejected merely on the ground that there was delay in lodging the F. I. R. and that registration number of the offending vehicle given in the F. I. R. was wrong. Driver had already been charge-sheeted vide Exh. PE. 7. As regards the quantum of compensation, it was found that deceased was 50 years of age as per post-mortem report, exh. Driver had already been charge-sheeted vide Exh. PE. 7. As regards the quantum of compensation, it was found that deceased was 50 years of age as per post-mortem report, exh. PK, was a transporter by profession, and was the owner of a truck as proved by exh. PQ, copy of registration certificate of truck No. HRE 2411, he was also owner of truck No. HR 20-7785 as shown by Exh. PS. As per income tax return Exh. PZ for the assessment year 2003-04 deceased had paid tax of Rs.1,176, but did not pay tax for the assessment year 2004-05. During the assessment year 2002-03 his income was Rs.48,663 while during the assessment year 2003-04 his income was Rs.66,755. Tribunal assessed his income as Rs.75,000 and deducting his own expenses being 1/3rd of the said income, the annual dependency was worked out to be Rs.50,000 and the multiplier of 8 was applied. Taking into account expenses on medical treatment and transportation and cremation, total sum of Rs.4,19,000 was awarded. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the sole testimony of PW 3, Gurbachan Singh could not have been relied upon having regard to the delay in lodging the F. I. R. and having regard to the fact that wrong number of the truck was mentioned. He also submitted that deduction of 1/3rd of personal expenses was not permissible as the deceased was survived only by his son who was aged 20 years and in fact there was no loss as the income was from the trucks which were still available. He has further submitted that there was no basis for assessment of Rs.75,000 as annual income of the deceased when the only evidence brought before the Tribunal was income tax returns showing much lesser amount. 9. We are unable to accept the submissions made. The evidence of claimant, who is the son of the deceased, has been believed by cogent reasons. It was held that mere delay in lodging the F. I. R. or mention of wrong number in F. I. R. did not affect his veracity. PW 3, Gurbachan Singh has duly explained the delay in lodging the f. I. R. since he was busy in the treatment of his father who died after 40 days of the accident and F. I. R. was lodged on the same day, i. e. , when the victim died. In affidavit, exh. PW 3, Gurbachan Singh has duly explained the delay in lodging the f. I. R. since he was busy in the treatment of his father who died after 40 days of the accident and F. I. R. was lodged on the same day, i. e. , when the victim died. In affidavit, exh. PG, which was proved in his evidence, he mentioned the income to be rs.15,000 to Rs.20,000 per month. While assessing income of the deceased, some amount of guesswork has to be allowed and having regard to the fact that the deceased had two trucks, assessment of income of Rs.75,000 per annum cannot be held to be arbitrary. Income disclosed in the previous years in the returns, even though relevant, cannot be treated as conclusive for the purpose of assessment by the Tribunal. Even if the version of PW 3, gurbachan Singh may be exaggerated, the assessment by the Tribunal of the income of the deceased at Rs.75,000 per annum at the time of his death cannot be held to be excessive. 10. In view of the above, we affirm the findings of the Tribunal that the death of inderjit Singh took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck and hold that the compensation of Rs.4,19,000, as determined by Claims tribunal, is not excessive. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.