Hon'ble RATHOD, J.—This appeal is preferred by Oriental Insurance Company Limited, appellant-original opponent No.3, challenging judgment and award passed by Claims Tribunal, Nadiad Exh.126 in MACP No.559 of 1986 decided on 15th September, 1990. The Claims Tribunal, Nadiad, has awarded total amount of compensation in favour of claimants Rs.3,82,000/- with 12% interest. 2. Learned advocate Mr.Sunil Parikh for appellant raised contention before this Court that accident occurred on 4th April, 1986, but FIR filed after 26 days on 1st May, 1986, Exh.123. Before Claims Tribunal, driver and owner was not appeared but only insurance company has appeared. Learned advocate Mr.Parikh submitted that it is the case of collusion between driver, owner and claimants and in fact the vehicle is not involved in the accident. He submitted that there was no eye-witness who has given FIR. He emphasise that claimant Radhaben Exh.36 in cross-examination in para 5 admitted facts that respondent No.2 who is owner of vehicle doing business of transport but how many trucks respondent No.2 is having, she has no idea. She has also stated that respondent No.2 belonged to her caste and also distantly related to her in laws family. When her husband had died in accident at that occasion respondent No.2 also came to her residence for giving condolence and respondent No.2 was meet to our family on number of occasions and also stated that if she wants to file any case or proceedings then he will help to her. She has made clear in cross-examination that she is not being meet to respondent No.2 but her father-in-law and younger brother of her husband are normally meet to respondent No.2. While emphasising this cross-examination, learned advocate Mr.Parikh submitted that, it is a clear case of collusion between owner, driver of vehicle and claimants, therefore appellant-insurance company is entitled to file appeal challenging the merits of matter as a matter of right. He also challenged amount of compensation. In case of collusion between owner, driver and claimants, he relied upon decision of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rani Ben and others reported in 2008 ACJ 2436 that appellant can file appeal even without permission having an alternative remedy under Section 110(C)(2A) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. He submitted that quantum of compensation which has been awarded by Claims Tribunal is on higher side. Ltd. vs. Rani Ben and others reported in 2008 ACJ 2436 that appellant can file appeal even without permission having an alternative remedy under Section 110(C)(2A) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. He submitted that quantum of compensation which has been awarded by Claims Tribunal is on higher side. He submitted that looking to age 36 years of deceased, 20 multiplier is on higher side. He referred para 8 of the judgment and submitted that entire calculation prepared by Claims Tribunal is erroneous. He also submitted that Claims Tribunal has considered future prospective income on basis of revised salary which will receive by deceased at the time when he will retire from service. At the time when the deceased was died his salary was Rs.1,870/- and that future prospective income it comes to Rs.2,863/- after deducting 1/3rd amount, Rs.1,800/- considered to be dependency, and on that basis total amount awarded Rs.3,82,000/- in favour of claimants, and therefore, amount of compensation which has been awarded is on higher side. At the time when deceased was died his salary was Rs.1,600/- but including HRA and other allowances it comes to Rs.1,870/-. Therefore he submitted that because of collusion which has been established on record by appellant considering cross-examination of claimants, delay in filing FIR and there was no eye-witness available on record which justify involvement of vehicle, therefore, Claims Tribunal has committed gross error in deciding claim petition which requires to be dismissed and appeal is to be allowed. 3. Learned advocate Mr.Shital Patel for Mr.A.J.Patel appeared on behalf of respondents - claimants submitted that one colleague who was working as teacher with deceased was examined at Exh.112 and eye-witness was examined at Exh.104 Dahyabhai Ramjibhai Vaghela and also produced various certificates issued by various authorities in respect to competency of deceased and deceased was a meritorious person taking active part in various activities and also received medal from various authorities. Therefore he submitted that Claim Tribunal has rightly examined the matter in respect of contention of collusion raised by otherside, and, according to him, compensation which has been awarded by Claims Tribunal is on lower side which requires to be enhanced. 4. I have considered the submissions made by both learned advocates. I have also perused award passed by Claims Tribunal, Nadiad. 4. I have considered the submissions made by both learned advocates. I have also perused award passed by Claims Tribunal, Nadiad. I have also perused paper book which has been supplied to this Court by learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties. The contention which has been raised by learned advocate Mr.Sunil Parikh that there was a collusion between owner of vehicle, driver and claimants, Claims Tribunal has considered this question while considering written statement filed by owner of vehicle and driver at Exh.28 where a specific averments made that accident is occurred and vehicle in question was involved in said accident. The deceased Chandubhai Babaji Vanzara who died in motor accident which took place on 04th April, 1986, at late night, near Village Davol of Borsad Taluka, Kheda District. The vehicle which has allegedly caused accident is Truck No.GRS - 6126. Opponent No.1 has been impleaded as driver and opponent No.2 is owner and opponent No.3 is insurance company. Deceased was going on scooter dashed by truck driver which was driven in a rash and negligent manner and therefore accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck driver, therefore, claim petition was filed. Insurance company filed written statement Exh.20 denying averments made in claim petition. Opponents No.1 and 2 driver and owner of vehicle have filed their written statement at Exh.28 where they admitted accident but do not admit the negligence and thereafter issues framed by Claims Tribunal Exh.18 and question of negligence has been examined by Claims Tribunal in para 5 while deciding issue No.1. 5. Before Claims Tribunal, on behalf of insurance company, same contention of collusion raised by insurance company. The owner of truck and petitioner belonged to same community and truck driver was also belonged to Kathlal and deceased and claimants originally belonged to Kathlal. It is admitted that petitioners-claimants and opponent No.2 is distantly related to her, and from all these circumstances, submission was made by insurance company's advocate that it is a case of collusion between owner of truck and claimants, Claims Tribunal has considered that this being an unfortunate, as it is, the contest is a triangular one between the petitioners, insurance company and owner of the truck, and because of lapses of owner, claimants cannot be penalsied. Of course, it is true that complaint regarding accident has been given very late. Of course, it is true that complaint regarding accident has been given very late. Complaint was given by one Shashikant Jaychanddas Bhavsar. Witness No. is not an eye-witness but witness No.2 has been examined as an eye-witness. Dahyabhai Ramjibhai Vaghela Exh.104, according to his evidence, on 4.4.1986 he was going on a motor cycle to Khambhat when he saw accident. The scooter was going towards Khambhat and truck was going towards Vasad. The scooter was going on its side and truck went on its wrong side and caused accident. In chief-examination he does mention truck number and in cross-examination he has stated that he had not given complaint. He has stated that after he saw accident, he went back and he did not inform the police station immediately but he has stated that he had given statement before the police. The Claims Tribunal has considered Exh.28 written statement filed by opponents No.1 and 2. Therefore claimant has discharged the burden from producing proof on being admission made by owner of truck and driver showing that accident had taken place by use of the said truck. Now it is the question between driver, owner and insurance company regarding who should bear liability for which claimant should not suffer. If, according to insurance company, there is some collusion, Claims Tribunal has kept open to take recourse against owner of vehicle legal remedy, either civil or criminal, as advised. But for proving involvement of vehicle in question, written statement Exh.28 filed by owner of truck is enough. Accordingly, Claims Tribunal has come to conclusion that accident occurred due to truck involved in accident. These facts have been supported by other evidence like P.M.Note Exh.109 and evidence of Dahyabhai Ramjibhai Vaghela Exh.104. 6. Claims Tribunal has considered quantum of compensation on basis of various certificates produced by claimants Exhs.39 to 93 and deceased was working as a teacher in school at Khambhat. The income of deceased has been proved by documentary evidence Exh.110 that on 1.1.1986 the revised pay scale was available to deceased which comes to Rs.1,600/- after HRA is included and medical allowance is included then it comes to Rs.1,870/-. Accordingly, Claims Tribunal examined the matter while determining amount of compensation applying 20 multiplier looking to age of deceased 36 years and prospective income is also considered. Accordingly, Claims Tribunal examined the matter while determining amount of compensation applying 20 multiplier looking to age of deceased 36 years and prospective income is also considered. Therefore, Claims Tribunal has considered individually loss of dependency in respect to each claimants and total amount has been awarded Rs.3,82,000/-. 7. I have perused paper book which has been supplied to me where driver's statement was obtained by police on 1.5.1986 where involvement of vehicle Truck No.GRS - 6126 was admitted. A police complaint is also filed against driver Rasikbhai Jaychandbhai Bhavsar. Statement of Maganbhai Ranchchodbhai was also obtained by police which also establish involvement of vehicle in statement dated 5.4.1987. Inquest Panchnama also proved the facts of death of deceased due to accident. The evidence of Radhaben Chandubhai widow of deceased in chief-examination has deposed before Claims Tribunal that her husband has been died in accident which occurred on 4.4.1986. 8. Learned advocate Mr.Parikh raising doubt about involvement of vehicle because of relationship of truck owner and claimant. In cross-examination merely respondent No.2 owner of truck met to claimant which cannot presume that there were collusion with each other claiming compensation from insurance company. The evidence of Dahyabhai Ramjibhai Vaghela who was eye-witness gave clear evidence that accident occurred on 4.4.1986 and on that occasion he was going on motor cycle from Vasad to Khambhat, and therefore, accident occurred is proved by producing certain evidence on record by claimant. These are evidences enough for coming to conclusion that truck in question was involved in said accident and deceased had been died due to said accident. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion made by Claims Tribunal while appreciating the evidence on record, according to my opinion, the contention which has been raised by learned advocate Mr.Parikh about collusion for that on behalf of appellant no independent evidence examined before Claims Tribunal. Merely relying upon the same except cross-examination of claimant is not helpful to appellant for proving relations between owner of truck and claimant. On behalf of insurance company no oral evidence was led and no such documentary evidence produced on record which justify contention raised by appellant insurance company. The evidence of claimants remained unchallenged and there is no rebuttal evidence produced by appellant insurance company before Claims Tribunal. On behalf of insurance company no oral evidence was led and no such documentary evidence produced on record which justify contention raised by appellant insurance company. The evidence of claimants remained unchallenged and there is no rebuttal evidence produced by appellant insurance company before Claims Tribunal. Therefore, according to my opinion, Claims Tribunal has rightly examined the matter and rightly decided the contention raised by appellant insurance company in respect to collusion. The Claims Tribunal has also rightly awarded the amount of compensation which cannot considered to be on a lower side. On the contrary, it is just, reasonable and proper amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, Nadiad, in favour of claimants. The contention raised by learned advocate Mr.Shital Patel for enhancement cannot be accepted because Claims Tribunal has properly examined the matter and there was no further evidence produced by claimants to justify enhancement in compensation. Therefore, according to my opinion, Claims Tribunal has properly decided the matter. No error has been committed by Claims Tribunal which requires interference by this Court. There is no substance in first appeal. Therefore it is dismissed. 10. Simultaneously there is no substance in Cross-Objection filed by the claimants and therefore the same is also dismissed.