JUDGMENT 1. This appeal by the appellant -Insurance Company is directed against the judgment/award passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamshedpur in Compensation Case No.117 of 2003 whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 8,20,000/-. 2. The claimants, who are the widow, minor son and daughter have filed the claim case for the death of Surendra Prasad. The deceased while kept his scooter on the left flank of the road and was engaged in natural call, all of a sudden, a trailer came and dashed the deceased and the deceased was crushed and ultimately died 3. The claimants case is that the deceased was 30 years young man and was carried on Masala Grinding and Polly Pack Industries and his monthly earning was of Rs. 6,000/-. 4. Mr. Alok Lal, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of rash and negligent driving of the trailer. According to the learned Counsel, the trailer, as a matter of fact, was parked and the deceased in his motorcycle rashly and negligently came in contact with the trailer, which resulted his death. 5. The Tribunal has considered the evidence in detail and recorded its finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the trailer. For better appreciation, para 7 of the impugned judgment is re-produced here-in-below: It is pertinent to mention here that from the side of the deceased no F.I.R. was lodged at the P.S. It is apparent from perusal of the Ext. 2 that the F.I.R. was lodged by one Pipu Mundtt (Khalasi) of the trailer bearing registration No. NL-05A-3147, but the Informant has not been examined by the side of the Opposite parties to substantiate the facts contained in the F.I.R. (Ext. 2). The evidence of A.W. 2 Santosh Kumar Gupta who is an eye witness of the occurrence, it amply proof the fact that the deceased Surendar Prasad had suffered premature death in course of road accident on 08.12.2001 near T.T.S. Golmuri (Burmamines) and trailer bearing registration No. NL-05A-3147 was involved in the accident From perusal of the F.I.R. (Ext. 2). The evidence of A.W. 2 Santosh Kumar Gupta who is an eye witness of the occurrence, it amply proof the fact that the deceased Surendar Prasad had suffered premature death in course of road accident on 08.12.2001 near T.T.S. Golmuri (Burmamines) and trailer bearing registration No. NL-05A-3147 was involved in the accident From perusal of the F.I.R. (Ext. 2) it does transpires that the trailer bearing NL-05A-3147 was involved in the alleged accident I further find from the evidence of A.W. 2 that the trailer was being driven at the relevant time rashly and negligently by its driver in back gear resulting in sustaining injuries by the deceased and consequent premature death of the deceased. The postmortem report (Ext. 1) confirms that the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on the following day and the doctor had observed that there were multiple ante mortem Injuries on the dead body of the deceased and said ante mortem injuries wore cause of death of the deceased. In the cross-examination, the above named witness A.W. 2 by the insurance company, I do not find any adverse material elicited from him to disbelieve his statement. I do not find any adverse material elicited in the cross-examination of A.W. 1, A.W. 3 and A.W. 4 by the insurance company to disbelieve their statement. The circumstances relating to the accident as explained by A.W. 2 indicate that the deceased was dashed against by the trailer while the trailer was moving behind in back gear by its driver. The evidence of this witness does not indicate that any other vehicle was involved in the accident or that the accident had occurred on account of any fault or negligent on the part of the deceased. Learned Counsel for the insurance Company has submitted that no protest petition has been filed from the side of the applicants against the negative final report and as such, there is no basis of the averment made by the claimants in the claim petition in respect of the manner of accident and the claim petition may be dismissed on the sole ground. From the side of the O.P.No.1 one witness namely O.P.W. 1 Arun Kumar Tiwari has been examined and certain documents namely, investigation report dated 21.04.2005, (Ext. From the side of the O.P.No.1 one witness namely O.P.W. 1 Arun Kumar Tiwari has been examined and certain documents namely, investigation report dated 21.04.2005, (Ext. A) and certified copy of order dated 13.11.2003 passed by the then District Judge, in M.J.C. Case No. 07 of 2003 Arpana Devi v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Ext. B). From perusal of the evidence of O.P.W. 1 read with Ext. A investigation report which is prepared by O.P.W. 1. It does transpires that this witness is not an eye witness of the alleged accident. O.P.W. 1 in his cross-examination has stated in specific term that he had not witnessed the alleged accident, he met with Pipu Munda informant, but he could not produce him as witness in the instant case. He has also stated that in course of investigation, he did not meet any other person. This goes to suggest that this witness has been appointed as investigating officer by Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and according to his direction, he conducted investigation regarding the alleged accident. It is pertinent to mention here that informant Pipu Munda has not been examined by the O.P. No. 1 in order to substantiate the contents of the F.I.R. (Ext. 2) lodged by him and in absence of corroboration of the facts contained in the F.I.R., the contents of the F.I.R. cannot be taken into consideration as conclusive prove. Ext. B goes to show that in respect of the alleged accident an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was paid by the insurance company O.P. No. 1 to the applicant Arpana Devi as ad interim compensation in respect of the alleged accident. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the applicants has submitted that merely because the F.I.R. Is not lodged that by itself is no ground for rejecting the claim petition. He relied on a case law . Rajasthan High Court in which it was held that F.I.R. is not a substantia piece of evidence, it is only corroborative evidence. It was further held that F.I.R. in a accident claim is desirable, but its existence or non existence can not be made basis for success of claim. He relied on a case law . Rajasthan High Court in which it was held that F.I.R. is not a substantia piece of evidence, it is only corroborative evidence. It was further held that F.I.R. in a accident claim is desirable, but its existence or non existence can not be made basis for success of claim. I find myself not in agreement with the contention of the learned Counsel for the insurance company on this point He further relied on a case law and Haryana High Court in which it was held that claim tribunal has to decide about the liabilities on the strength of evidence led before it. Thus, the issue no.2 is decided accordingly. 5. In our view, the Tribuna1 a her appreciating the entire evidence has come to the conclusion that tho accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of.the trailer. We do not find any reason to differ with the findings recorded by the Tribunal 6. Mr. Lal, learned Counsel submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is in a higher side. At the very outset, we are of the view that the quantum of compensation cannot be challenged by the Insurance Company by preferring appeal. We further find that there is no denial from the side of the Insurance Company that the deceased was not doing his Masala Grinding business and having Polly Pack Industries and his monthly earning was of Rs. 6,000/-. The Tribunal after deducting 1/3 out of the monthly earning assessed compensation at Rs. 8,20,000/-. In any view of the matter, the amount of compensation of Rs. 8,20,000/- cannot, at any stretch of imagination, said to be in a higher side in case of death of 30 years young man having monthly earning was of Rs. 6,000/-. We do not find any merit this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.