JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.C. Agarwal, J.—We have heard Sri Viqar Ahmed Ansari, learned counsel for the appellant – opposite party No. 3 at length on 5.5.2010 at the time of admission. This Appeal can be disposed of at this stage finally without issuing notices to the respondents. 2. This First Appeal From Order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 11.2.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Kanpur Nagar in MACP No. 467 of 2005. 3. In brief, the facts are that on 19.2.2005, the deceased Gauri Shankar, husband of claimant-respondent No. 1, son of claimant-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and father of claimant-respondent Nos. 4 to 8, was going from his house to Qasba Patara by a three-wheeler. On the way, three-wheeler developed trouble and could not proceed further. Gauri Shankar and other passengers proceeded on foot towards Samua Railway Crossing. The driver of scooter No. UP 78 V-2502, driving rashly and negligently, hit Gauri Shankar from behind causing serious injuries. While Gauri Shankar was being taken to Primary Health Centre, Bidhnu, he died on the way. Scooter driver Govind-respondent No. 10, in order to save himself and the scooter owner Tulsi Ram-respondent No. 9, lodged the false F.I.R. at the police station concealing the real facts. According to claimants, the deceased used to earn about Rs. 9000/- per month from wholesale business in vegetables and his age was about 40 years. An amount of Rs. 24,80,000/- with interest was claimed as compensation. 4. The claim petition was contested by respondent Nos. 9 and 10 and the appellant, who were impleaded as respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively in the claim petition. The defence was that at the time of accident, respondent Nos. 9 and 10 were standing near the place of occurrence with their scooter No. UP 78 V-2502, as the scooter had developed mechanical defect, which was being looked into and in the meantime one unknown hero honda motor-cycle of red colour hit Gauri Shankar and caused him injuries. Gauri Shankar died on way to hospital and driver of hero honda motor-cycle manged to escape. Respondent No. 9 lodged F.I.R. against the motorcycle driver. 5. Learned Tribunal framed relevant issues. Gauri Shankar died on way to hospital and driver of hero honda motor-cycle manged to escape. Respondent No. 9 lodged F.I.R. against the motorcycle driver. 5. Learned Tribunal framed relevant issues. The claimants examined Jamuna Devi as P.W.1 and also examined Kamlesh Tiwari, an eyewitness, as P.W.2. Appellant and the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 did not adduce any oral evidence before the Tribunal. Both the parties filed documents. 6. After hearing the parties, Tribunal came to the conclusion that the death of Gauri Shankar was caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of scooter No. UP 78 V – 2502 and the deceased had not, in any manner, contributed towards the accident. Tribunal also found that the scooter was owned and driven by respondent No. 9 and insured by the appellant at the time of accident. The scooter driver had valid and effective driving license and there was no violation or contravention of the conditions of insurance policy. Learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 15000/- per annum as per the notional income provided under II schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the dependency of the claimants was assessed at Rs. 10,000/- per annum. Applying the multiplier of 15, relevant for the age group of 40 – 45 years, pecuniary damages were assessed to be Rs. 1,50,000/-. Additional amount of Rs. 2000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 5000/- for loss of consortium to the wife were added. Thus, a consolidated sum of Rs. 1,57,000/- was awarded to the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 8 alongwith 6% interest w.e.f. the date of presentation of the claim petition. 7. Sri Viqar Ahmed Ansari, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submitted that F.I.R. was lodged against one unknown red coloured hero honda motor-cycle. After investigation, police submitted final report and the accident caused by unknown motor-cycle driver, but was not caused by respondent Nos. 9 or 10 and a false story was cooked up later on to extract compensation from the appellant and respondent Nos. 9 and 10. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned judgment and award, we do not find force in the submissions advanced by Sri Viqar Ahmed Ansari. 9. The claimants had examined one Kamlesh Tiwari (P.W. 2), as a witness of fact. 9 and 10. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned judgment and award, we do not find force in the submissions advanced by Sri Viqar Ahmed Ansari. 9. The claimants had examined one Kamlesh Tiwari (P.W. 2), as a witness of fact. Kamlesh Tiwari stated on oath before the Tribunal that on 19.2.2005 at about 5-5:15 p.m., the accident took place near Samua Railway Crossing. At that time he was going from Kanpur to his village Padri. Scooter No. UP 78 V-2502 passed by in zig zag manner and overtook his motor-cycle. About 100 paces ahead 4-5 persons were going on foot. The scooter hit one of them. The name of the injured was Gauri Shankar, who was taken to hospital. Tribunal believed the testimony of Kamlesh Tiwari (P.W. 2) and came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash driving and negligence of the driver of the scooter No. UP 78 V-2502. It will not be out of place to mention that Govind - respondent No. 10, who lodged the F.I.R. regarding this incident at the police station, did not dare to enter the witness box to present his version of the incident. His version given in the F.I.R. and another version given by him in the written statement are contradictory. In the F.I.R., Govind alleged that at the time of incident, the deceased Gauri Shankar was traveling with him on his scooter and was hit by a motor-cycle, but in the written statement, jointly filed by respondent Nos. 9 and 10, it was pleaded that respondent Nos. 9 and 10 namely, Tulsi Ram and Govind were going on the scooter and they saw Gauri Shankar being hit by a motorcycle. The reason for this change of version is not far to see. The version appears to have been changed on account of the fact that Govind did not possess any driving license, therefore, the version was changed and in the written statement it was claimed that scooter was being driven by its owner Tulsi Ram and Govind was the pillion rider. In view of the contradictory stand of Govind in the F.I.R. and in the written statement, we are unable to place any reliance on the story setup by the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 in their written statement and in the F.I.R. lodged by respondent No. 10. In view of the contradictory stand of Govind in the F.I.R. and in the written statement, we are unable to place any reliance on the story setup by the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 in their written statement and in the F.I.R. lodged by respondent No. 10. It appears that accident was caused by the scooter of respondent No. 9, which hit Gauri Shankar from behind and in order to save himself and the scooter owner, Govind lodged a false F.I.R. at the police station alleging therein that the accident was caused by an unknown motor-cycle driver. 10. Admittedly, Govind was present at the place of occurrence with scooter No. UP 78 V-502. As per the statement of P.W. 2, the aforesaid scooter hit the deceased from behind causing fatal injuries. Govind, though lodged the F.I.R., did not appear in the witness box to prove his version of the accident. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in accepting the testimony of Kamlesh Tiwari (P.W. 2) regarding the manner of accident. We do not find any error in the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the driver of scooter No. UP 78 V-2502. Consequently, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot accepted. 11. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 15000/- per annum on the basis of notional income provided under the II schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and has applied the correct multiplier. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not require any interference by this Court. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by Sri Viqar Ahmed Ansari, learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in this Appeal, which is liable to be dismissed. There is no need to issue notices to the respondents. 13. The Appeal is dismissed at admission stage. 14. The amount of Rs. 25000/- deposited by the appellant while filing the present Appeal, be remitted to the Tribunal for being adjusted towards the amount to be deposited by the appellant. 15. Office is directed to send the copy of this judgment to the Tribunal concerned for necessary action. ————