JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. : The award dated 20.4.2004 passed by Second Motor Accident Claim’s Tribunal, Cuttack in Misc. Case No.701 of 2000 is assailed by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in MACA No.359/2004. The same award is also assailed by the claimants in MACA No.394/2004. The facts and points of law in both the cases being same, by consent of the parties, the same were heard together. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts which are necessary for appreciating the inter se disputes are that the appellants of MACA No.394/2004 being the widow, sons, daughters and mother of Ananta Charan Samal filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, inter alia, alleging that the said Ananta Charan Samal was hit by a Trekker bearing Regn. No. OR-05-F-0573 while he was walking on the left side of the road on 17.3.1999. The offending trekker was driven in a very rash and negligent manner. Due to the accident said Ananta Charan Samal sustained multiple injuries all over his body. He was admitted into the S.C.B. Medical College-Hospital, Cuttack and was treated as an indoor patient, but he expired on 8.4.1999. It was averred that he was working as a Call Manager in “Niyati Gananatya” and was earning a salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. Apart from the said job he was also having control dealership business and earning about Rs.3,000/- per month. Thus, his total income was Rs.7,000/-. The claimants spent near about Rs.1 lakh for treatment. The claimants prayed for a compensation of Rs.4,95,000/-. 3. The owner of the vehicle appeared and filed his written statement admitting the accident and employment of the deceased, but disputed the claim of compensation and the allegation with regard to rash and negligent driving of the trekker. 4. The Insurance Company in its written statement denied its liability and also disputed all the allegations of the claim¬ants. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleading of the parties framed four issues. The claimants in order to substantiate their case got three witnesses examined and exhibited six documents. On behalf of the owner no evidence was adduced, but then the Insurance Company got one witness examined. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleading of the parties framed four issues. The claimants in order to substantiate their case got three witnesses examined and exhibited six documents. On behalf of the owner no evidence was adduced, but then the Insurance Company got one witness examined. The Xerox copy of the Insurance Policy was exhibited as Ext.A. After discussing the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,73,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the case till the date of deposit. The said award is assailed by the claimants mainly on the ground that the Tribunal acted illegally and with material irregularity in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- ignor¬ing the Salary Certificate and other documents exhibited. It is further urged that the Tribunal acted illegally in not taking into consideration the amount spent towards treatment and thus the amount awarded is grossly inadequate. 5. The Insurance Company, on the other hand, assails the award mainly on the ground that the Tribunal acted illegally and with material irregularity in accepting the story of accident inasmuch as though the accident, stated to have occurred on 17.3.99 the F.I.R. was lodged on 10.8.2000 and the offending vehicle was seized on 5.1.2001. It is emphatically submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged near about one and half years after the date of accident, that too by the daughter of the deceased. It is further stated that the Tribunal acted illegally and with materi¬al irregularity in not allowing an application filed under Sec¬tion 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act thereby causing prejudice to the Insurance Company. The 3rd ground on which the award is chal¬lenged is that there was apparent interpolation in the G.R. Case records inasmuch as though initially it was reported that the accident was caused by a Scooter, subsequently it was changed as Trekker. It is alleged that though on the basis of the petition filed by the Insurance Company, the records of the G.R. Case were called for, the same were not produced and the Tribunal failed to draw adverse inference. It is alleged that though on the basis of the petition filed by the Insurance Company, the records of the G.R. Case were called for, the same were not produced and the Tribunal failed to draw adverse inference. The last ground taken by the appellant Insurance Company is that in the absence of any original Insur¬ance Policy the Tribunal acted illegally in arriving at the conclusion that the offending vehicle was duly insured on the basis of a Xerox copy of the Insurance Policy. According to Dr. Rath, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the vehicle in question was not validly insured with the appellant company and as such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensa¬tion. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the evidence available on record. In para-10 of the judgment the Tribunal has observed as follows : “Under Ext.4, certified copy of the seizure list in connect¬ed P.S. Case Insurance Policy No.3155030309469 issued by the Opp.Party No.2 has been seized but same is valid till 24.9.2000 and that policy has been marked as Ext.A. This policy having validity from 25.9.1999 to 24.9.2000 does not cover the period of accident. But insurance policy No.31550307567 issued by O.P. No.2 in favour of O.P. No.1 in respect of offending vehicle has valid¬ity from 25.8.98 to 24.9.99 covering the accident period. Xerox copy of which is filed on 15.4.2004 by Opp.Party No.1. He also filed Xerox copy of the same insurance cover note No.128378, that number mentioned in his written statement and his copy of appli¬cation dtd. 9.4.2004 to O.P. No.2 to grant certified copy of original insurance policy vide No.3155030307567 valid from 25.9.98 to 24.8.99 lost in Super Cyclone. As such when O.P. No.2 as insurer of the offending vehicle has liability to compensate the claimant-petitioners O.P. No.1 as its owner has vicarious liability in that regard. It may be mentioned here that it is revealed from Xerox copy of Driving Licence No.3556/94-95/Cut¬tack filed along with written statement of O.P. No.1 that Nitya¬nanda Rout, charge sheeted driver of the offending vehicle was authorized to drive light motor vehicle, D. L. renewed up to 26.1.2003, it originally issued on 21.9.94.” 7. Fact remains the number of Insurance Policy and cover note were available on records. Fact remains the number of Insurance Policy and cover note were available on records. Even a Xerox copy of the Insur¬ance Policy was marked as Exts.A. If in fact the vehicle in question was not validly insured and the Xerox copy of the Insur¬ance Policy filed was not a genuine one, it was open to the appellant-Insurance Company to produce the original Insurance Policy and prove its contention that the vehicle was not validly insured. In view of the specific stand taken by the claimant and the availability of a copy of Insurance Policy on the record, the onus to disprove the fact of insurance of the offending vehicle shifts upon the Insurance Company. More so, because of a specific plea that the original insurance policy was damaged in the 1999 cyclone. The Insurance Company failed to take any step to produce the policy. 8. So far as the submissions with regard to late filing of the F.I.R. is concerned, the Tribunal has discussed the said issue in extenso in para-6 of the judgment and came to the con¬clusion that the delay was well explained in the F.I.R. itself. Perusal of the F.I.R. clearly reveals that the accident was caused by the offending Trekker bearing Regn. No.OR-05-0573 on 17.3.1999. It also reveals that the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 8.4.1999. His post mortem was conducted and U.D. Case No.246/99 was registered. It is further stated that after comple¬tion of the obsequies the widow enquired at Jagatsinghpur P.S. and was informed that the officers of the said Police Station having received intimation from Mangalabag P.S., Cuttack, no further F.I.R. was necessary. But then subsequently it was learnt that the O.I.C. of Jagatsinghpur P.S. was transferred and the case was never registered. Coming to now about the said fact, a fresh F.I.R. was filed. The certified copies of the orders passed in G.R. Case No.525/2000 are also available on record. The said records clearly reveal that the accident was caused by the Trek¬ker bearing Regn. No.OR-05-F-0573. The records also corroborate the facts stated in the F.I.R. The inquest report as well as the post mortem report are also available on records. The evidence of Siba Ch. The said records clearly reveal that the accident was caused by the Trek¬ker bearing Regn. No.OR-05-F-0573. The records also corroborate the facts stated in the F.I.R. The inquest report as well as the post mortem report are also available on records. The evidence of Siba Ch. Mohanty, the Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company reveals that he admitted with regard to issuance of the insurance policy as well as genuineness of Ext.A. In cross-exami¬nation he stated as follows : “Insurance Company is liable for compensation as per policy condition.” 9. The inquest report is available in the U.D. Case. There were also eye witnesses to the accident. That apart in cross-examination of the witnesses for the claimants, the appellant-Insurance Company could not elicit anything to disbelieve the accident. In the aforesaid scenario, after going through the evidence of the witnesses and other materials, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding arrived at by the Tribu¬nal. 10. So far as assessment of the income of the deceased is concerned, perusal of the materials reveal that no reliable evidence was produced in support of the plea of employment of the deceased as Call Manager in an Opera Party. There are also a lot of discrepancies with regard to the income of the deceased, in the statements of the witnesses and the salary certificate, Ext.1. But then there are materials to reveal that the deceased was working as a control dealer and his monthly income there from was assessed at Rs.3,000/-. I do not find any infirmity in the conclusions arrived at in that regard. There is also some dis¬crepancy with regard to the age of the deceased. The accident in question occurred in the year 1999, about seven years have passed in the meanwhile. Remanding the case to the Tribunal at this stage shall not purpose, on the other hand, it would not be bene¬ficial to either of the parties, inasmuch as the Insurance Compa¬ny will be saddled with more interest and the claimants will be deprived of the compensation for quite some time. Considering all these facts, this Court feels that awarding a compensation of Rs.2,55,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty five thousand) instead of Rs.2,73,500/- would be just, proper and equitable, and I direct accordingly. Considering all these facts, this Court feels that awarding a compensation of Rs.2,55,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty five thousand) instead of Rs.2,73,500/- would be just, proper and equitable, and I direct accordingly. Apart from the aforesaid compensation the claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum thereon from the date of filing of the claim application till realization. If according to the appellant there is any breach of policy condi¬tion, liberty is granted to them to realise the amount paid from the owner, in consonance with law. With the aforesaid observation/direction both the MACAs are disposed of. MACAs disposed of.