Judgment S. MANIKUMAR, J. Questioning the finding regarding negligence, liability fixed on the Company and the quantum of compensation. National Insurance Company Limited has preferred this appeal. .2. TheCase of the respondents/claimants are as follows: .On 111. 2002, about 11.55 a.m., when the husband of the first respondent was riding a Scooter, bearing Registration No. TN 047179, on Kotturpuram overbridge, from South to North, keeping on the left side of the road a Bajaj M80 bearing Registration No. TN 07 W 3402, which came from behind, hit the Scooterist due to which he fell down and sustained multiple injuries and later, succumbed to the same on 111. 2002. Wife, aged 36 years, two minor sons, aged 15 and 9 years respectively and mother, aged 64 years, have claimed compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/-. According to them, at the time of accident, the deceased, aged 47 years, was a Proprietor of K.K.Engineering Works and earned Rs. 10,000/- per month. 3. Theappellant-Insurance Company, with the leave of the tribunal, denied the manner of accident. They further submitted that there was no valid insurance policy for Bajaj M80 Motorcycle, bearing Registration No. TN 07 W 3402, on the date of accident and therefore, they are not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. It is their further contention that even in the rough sketch, the offending vehicle was mentioned as “number unknown” and in these circumstances, they disputed the involvement of the vehicle insured with them. Inasmuch as, the involvement of the vehicle itself is questioned, the Tribunal ought to have considered this case, as one of hit and run and in such circumstances, the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable. Without prejudice to the above, they have also put the respondents/claimants to prove the averments relating to age, avocation and income of the deceased. 4. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent-Widow examined herself as P.W.1 and P.W.2, is said to be an eye-witness. Exhibit P-1 – FIR, Exhibit P-2-Charges Sheet filed against the rider of Bajaj M80 motorcycle, Exhibit P-3 – Accident Register copy issued by the Government General Hospital, Chennai, Exhibit P-4-Rough Sketch of the place of occurrence, Exhibit P-5-Post-Mortem Certificate, Exhibit P-6-Death report of the deceased, Exhibit P-7-Death Certificate of the deceased, Exhibit P-8-Medical Bills to the tune of Rs. Exhibit P-1 – FIR, Exhibit P-2-Charges Sheet filed against the rider of Bajaj M80 motorcycle, Exhibit P-3 – Accident Register copy issued by the Government General Hospital, Chennai, Exhibit P-4-Rough Sketch of the place of occurrence, Exhibit P-5-Post-Mortem Certificate, Exhibit P-6-Death report of the deceased, Exhibit P-7-Death Certificate of the deceased, Exhibit P-8-Medical Bills to the tune of Rs. 57,784/-, Exhibit P-9-Legal Heir Certificate, Exhibit P-10-B.A, Mark Sheet of the deceased, Exhibit P-11-Bill Book of the K.K. Engineering Works and Exhibit P-12-S.S.L.C.Book of the deceased, were marked on behalf of the respondents/claimants. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company. .5. TheTribunal, on evaluation of pleadings and evidence, found that the rider of Bajaj M80 Motorcycle, bearing Registration No. TN 07 W 3402, insured with the appellant-Insurance Company was responsible for the accident and quantified the compensation at Rs. 6.93,784/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 6. Taking this Court through the impugned judgment and the contents of Exhibit P-1-FIR, Exhibit P-3-Accident Register copy issued by the Government General Hospital. Chennai and Exhibit P-4-Rough Sketch of the place of occurrence, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the accident was caused by an unknown vehicle. According to him. As per Exhibit P-1-FIR, the deceased was said to have been hit by an unknown vehicle and there is no reason as to how. Bajaj M80 bearing Registration No.TN 07 W 3402, came to be identified as the vehicle involved in the accident. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company further submitted that as per the Fir, the accident is said to have occurred at 11.55 Hours, when the deceased was alleged to have traveled along with a pillion rider, in TVS Excel Motorcycle. If that so, the reason as to why the said pillion rider was not examined before the Tribunal, has not been explained. He further submitted that if P.W.2, was present at the time fo accident he could have very well noted down the Registration number of the offending vehicle and preferred a complaint to the Police. 8. If that so, the reason as to why the said pillion rider was not examined before the Tribunal, has not been explained. He further submitted that if P.W.2, was present at the time fo accident he could have very well noted down the Registration number of the offending vehicle and preferred a complaint to the Police. 8. Taking this Court through the averments made in the claim petition, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that when the averments made in the claim petition does not disclose the presence of P.W.2, at the time of accident, there is no explanation in the evidence of the respondents/claimants, as to how, they came to know that P.W.2, is an Eye-Witness to the accident and that too, after six years, from the date of accident. He further submitted that if P.W.2, had really witnessed the accident, he would have been examined by the Police and cited as one of the Prosecution Witnesses before the Criminal Court. 9. Pointing out that there was a delay of five hours in lodging the FIR and in the absence of examination of the Police Officer, who had implicated the vehicle, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that when the respondents/claimants have deliberately not examined the alleged pillion rider and in the absence of any explanation as to how Bajaj M80 Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 07 W 3402, was implicated, the Tribunal, ought to have eschewed the evidence of P.W.2, who was brought in for the sole purpose of supporting the case of the claimants. If the evidence of P.W.2, is excluded, then what remains to be considered is whether the claimants have established the involvement of the v3hicle insured with them or not. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company further submitted that on analysis of entire evidence, the Tribunal, ought to have discarded the evidence of P.W.2, an alleged eyewitness, who had been roped in alter six years from the date of accident and consequently, held that the respondents/claimants have not substantiated the manner of accident and the involvement of the vehicle insured with them. .11. .11. Placing reliance on a decision of this Court in the New India Assurance Company Ltd. V. Sekar and Another (2009) 5 MLJ 876 : 2009 (2) LW 927 , learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that even if the driver of the-vehicle pleads guilty before the Criminal Court, that alone is not sufficient or a factor to establish the manner of accident and in such circumstances, it is the bounden duty of the respondents/claimants to prove the manner of accident and the negligence of the driver before the Tribunal. He therefore submitted that in the absence of any supporting evidence, otherthan P.W.2, a stock witness, examined after six years from the date of accident, mere filing of the charge sheet against the rider of Bajaj M80 Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 07 W 3402 or even the conviction itse4lf, would not enable the Tribunal to fasten the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company. In sum and substance, he submitted that the whole thing has been manipulated by the respondents/claimants and therefore, there is a grave error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal. 12. Without prejudice to the above, on the quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the monthly income at Rs.6,000/-, without any basis. It is his further contention that though the respondents/claimants have produced some bill books, alleged to have been maintained by the deceased, no books of accounts or bank account or any other credible evidence, was produced before the Tribunal to substantiate the income of the deceased. He therefore submitted that the determination of the monthly income by the Tribunal is erroneous and consequently, the computation of dependency compensation is liable to be set aside. 13. Per contra, justifying the finding regarding negligence and the consequential liability fastened on the appellant-Insurance Company, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, took this Court through the counter affidavit filed by the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the plea of involvement of the vehicle has not been specifically raised in the counter affidavit, but the appellant-Insurance Company only insisted the respondents/claimants to prove the negligence on the part of the rider of Bajaj M80 Motorcycle, bearing Registration No. TN 07 W 3402, to make a claim under the Act. According to him, the accident and the involvement of the vehicle were admitted by the appellant-Insurance Company and therefore, it is not open to them to take a different stand before this Court. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants further submitted that the delay in lodging FIR by itself, is not fatal to a claim for compensation to the victims and in the case on hand, when the FIR, has been lodged on the same day evening, the Tribunal has properly adjudicated the issues, regarding the involvement of the vehicle and arrived at a conclusion, as to what a prudent man would do on the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that though the credibility of the evidence of .W.2, eye-witness, has been questioned on the ground that his name did not figure in the FIR or on the averments made in the claim petition, the veracity of the evidence let in by P.W.2, has not been shattered and in such circumstances, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, there is no reason to discard his oral testimony. .15. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants further submitted that non-examination of the pillion rider, would not in any way affect the case of the respondent/claimants and the contention of the appellant-Insurance Company that the claim is concocted, does not deserve any consideration. He further submitted that when Exhibits P-1 to P-4, were marked to prove that though the Police had initially registered a crime as a hit and run, case but subsequently, on investigation, laid a charge, against the rider of the offending vehicle, Bajaj M80, bearing Registration No. TN 07 W 3402, the documentary evidence adduced, on behalf of the respondents/claimants, would speak for itself about the manner of accident and the involvement of the vehicle. 16. According to learned counsel, if there was any doubt, in the investigation conducted by the Police, nothing prevented the appellant-Insurance Company from taking steps to examine the Police Officer, who laid the charge sheet. 16. According to learned counsel, if there was any doubt, in the investigation conducted by the Police, nothing prevented the appellant-Insurance Company from taking steps to examine the Police Officer, who laid the charge sheet. He further submitted that when the evidence of P.W.2, is cogent and natural and when the supportive documents point out the involvement of the vehicle, on investigation, the respondents/claimants have established their case and consequentially, the finding of the Tribunal, fixing the fault on the part of the rider of Bajaj M80 bearing Registration No. TN 07 W 3402, cannot be said to be manifestly illegal, contrary to evidence or perverse, warranting any interference. 117. Placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. V. Ammaiyan I (2009) ACC 127, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that merely because the registration number of the vehicle is not mentioned in the FIR, it does not mean that there was no accident and when the statement of eye-witness nd investigation report of police clearly show that offending vehicle was involved in the accident, no interference is called for. 118. In sum, and substance, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that when the negligence on the part of the offending vehicle insured with the appellant-Insurance Company is satisfactorily proved by the respondents/claimants before the Tribunal the same need not be disturbed and therefore, prayed to sustain the findings with regard to negligence. 119. On the quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was running an Engineering Company, on his own and earned a reasonable income. He further submitted that in order to prove self-employment of the deceased, the respondents/claimants have produced Exhibit P-11, Bill Book maintained by the deceased. He further submitted that having regard to the number of dependants and the avocation of the deceased, the family contribution of Rs. 4,000/-, taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the dependency compensation, cannot be said to be arbitrary or excessive. .20. Pointing out that the Tribunal has awarded a meager compensation of Rs. 2,000/- for Funeral Expenses, Rs. He further submitted that having regard to the number of dependants and the avocation of the deceased, the family contribution of Rs. 4,000/-, taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the dependency compensation, cannot be said to be arbitrary or excessive. .20. Pointing out that the Tribunal has awarded a meager compensation of Rs. 2,000/- for Funeral Expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of love and affection to the minor children and the mother of the deceased and the failure to award any compensation for the loss of Consortium to the first respondent-Widow, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal, is just and reasonable and does require any reduction. .Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. .21. Traversing into the main issue as to whether Bajaj M80 bearing Registration NO. TN 07 W 3402 insured with the appellant-Insurance Company was involved in the accident and as to whether the respondents/claimants have substantiated negligence on the part of the rider of the above said vehicle, it is necessary to consider the pleadings relating to involvement of the vehicle. .22. The accident has occurred on 111. 2002. The Claim Petition is dated 112. 2003. In Column No.23 of the claim petition, the respondents/claimants have narrated the manner of accident and involvement of Bajaj M80 Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 07 W 3402. Per contra, the appellant-Insurance Company, at paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, filed before the Tribunal, has stated as follows: .“5. Without prejudice to the contentions as above, the allegations made in Col.23 and 23-A are totally denied and the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same. As per FIR accident was reported by one GRajaiyyan to the Police Station and he has stated that the Motor Cycle of the deceased was hit by a vehicle of unknown origin and ran away. Even in the plan the hit vehicle was mentioned as “number unknown”. In these circumstances, the claim of the petitioners with reference to hit vehicle is imaginary and manipulated and as such this, respondent is not liable.” 123. Even in the plan the hit vehicle was mentioned as “number unknown”. In these circumstances, the claim of the petitioners with reference to hit vehicle is imaginary and manipulated and as such this, respondent is not liable.” 123. At Paragraph 7, the appellant-Insurance Company has stated that the liability of the Company would be attracted only if negligence on the part of the rider of the vehicle insured with them, is established and as such, the Company has insisted the respondents/claimants to prove negligence on the part of the rider. Reading of the counter affidavit in entirety, in particular. Paragraphs 5 and 7, does not indicate as to whether thee is any unequivocal admission on the part of the appellant-Insurance Company about the involvement of Bajaj M80 Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 07 W 3402. Therefore, the contention of the respondents/claimants that the appellant-Insurance Company have admitted-the involvement of the vehicle in their counter affidavit and that they are estopped from raising the said plea before this Court, cannot be countenanced. 124. In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to adjudge the issue as to whether the offending vehicle, insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, is involved in the accident and as to whether the respondents/claimants have substantiated negligence on the part of the rider of Bajaj M80 Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 07 W 3402, so as to enable the Tribunal to fasten the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company. .25. Perusal of Exhibit P-1-FIR, lodged with J5 Shastri Nagar Police Station shows that on 111. 2002 at 17.000 Hours, a crime was reported to the said police by one Rajaiyyaa aged 56 years. According to him, on 111. 2002, about 11.55 a.m., when he was traveling as a Pillion rider in a TVS XL Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 09 B 7998, along with his friend, Sabapathy, on Gandhi Mandapam Road, near Kotturpuram bridge, there was a crowd. On seeing his friend, Krishnamoorthy (deceased), lying on the road, with grievous injuries on his head, he stopped the motorcycle. The vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 04 7179, was in a damaged condition. On enquiry, he found that the some vehicle had hit and run from the place of occurrence. He has further stated in the FIR that the injured was admitted in Royapettah Government Hospital. The vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 04 7179, was in a damaged condition. On enquiry, he found that the some vehicle had hit and run from the place of occurrence. He has further stated in the FIR that the injured was admitted in Royapettah Government Hospital. The complaint given by the said individual has been registered as Crime No. 515/A.M. II of 2002, under Vehicles Act. The time of occurrence is stated as 11.55 Hours and that the complaint has been given at 17.00 Hours. 126. The Inspector of Police. Traffic Investigation, Adyar and Mylapore Range, has taken up the investigation. Exhibit P-2 is the Charge Sheet laid against one M.Balaji @ Balakrishnan, rider of Bajaj M80 Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 07 W 3402. under Section 304 IPC read with 184 and 134 (A) and (B) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Perusal of Exhibit P-2. final report/charge sheet shows that the Police, on investigation, has laid a charge against Mr. M. Balaji (a) Balakrishnan, rider of Bajaj M80 Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 07 W 3402. under Section 304 IPC read with 184 and 134(A) and (B) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 127. Perusal of Exhibit P-3, Accident Register, shows that the rider of Motorcycle, bearing Registration No. TN -9 B 7998 and Mr. Sabapathy, as pillion rider, have brought the injured to the hospital. The fact that an accident has occurred on 111. 2002 and that the injured was brought immediately to the hospital, has been proved by the respondents/claimants. 20.28. The main contention of the appellant-Insurance Company is that the vehicle insured with them was not involved in the accident and that the Tribunal has failed to consider the evidence in proper perspective and the preponderance of probability, when P.W.2, has been roped in, after six years from the date of accident without explanation as to how the respondents/claimants, came to know about him aild that the Police Officer, who laid charge against the rider of Bajaj M80 motorcycle, insured with the appellant-Insurance Company has not examined him and whether the Tribunal was right in recording the finding against the driver, ignoring the contents of Exhibit P-1_FIR. Exhibit P-3-Accident Register and Exhibit P-4-Sketch, where the deceased was said to have been hit by an unknown vehicle. 229. Exhibit P-3-Accident Register and Exhibit P-4-Sketch, where the deceased was said to have been hit by an unknown vehicle. 229. Before entering into the said arena, let me consider some of the cases, relied on by the learned counsel appearing for both parties in the case of hit and run and the manner, in which, the Court/Tribunal has to proceed even if there is an admission on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle before the Criminal Court. 230. In N. Sathidevi and Others v. V. Giridharan and Another 2004 (2) TN MAC 101, when a claim for compensation by wife and others was made, the Insurance Company therein disputed the involvement of the vehicle. The Insurance Company further contended that their investigation revealed that the deceased was a habitual drunkard and on the date of accident the deceased was fully drunk and due to the same, he fell down from the Scooter and that the Autorickshaw vehicle alleged to have involved in the accident was not there at the time of accident. The Tribunal, on the bass of the judgment of the Criminal Court, marked as Exhibit A-2, in which, the driver of the Auto pleaded guilty and paid the fine, held that the Autorickshaw had involved in the accident and consequently, fastened the liability on the Insurance Company. The accident was said to have been occurred on 25. 1991. but the FIR was given only on 25. 1991 about 15.00 Hours, wherein, it was stated that some vehicle hit the scooterist. The number of the vehicle was not given. However, the driver of the Autorickshaw pleaded guilty and the judgment of conviction was marked as Exhibit A-2. After considering a plethora of decisions, including the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the Managing Director, Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation Limited, Villupuram v. Mohammed Jaffer (1995) 2 MLJ 317 , at paragraph 24, held that, “it is clear that the admission made in the, criminal proceedings, cannot be relied on. But the case of the claimants have to be established independently, before the Criminal Court, absolutely, there is no evidence to conclude that the auto bearing registration No. MDG 1948 involved in the accident. P.Ws.1 and 2 had not stated about the same. But the case of the claimants have to be established independently, before the Criminal Court, absolutely, there is no evidence to conclude that the auto bearing registration No. MDG 1948 involved in the accident. P.Ws.1 and 2 had not stated about the same. The Tribunal also decided the case in favour of the claimants only on the basis of the copy of the judgment in C.C. No. 1098 of 1991 marked as Exhibit A-2 and the admission made by the driver in the Criminal Court. So it is clear that the claimants have not established independently before the Tribunal that the said vehicle involved in the accident, through such a dispute had been raised.” 31. In a more recent judgment in the New India Assurance Company Ltd. V. Sekar and Another (supra), on 12. 1999 about 2.30 p.m., while the petitioner therein was standing in the Post office but stop in Cuddalore. Bharathi Road. TVS Suzuki Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-31-B-4950, insured with second respondent-Insurance Company was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against him and he sustained multiple injuries and fractures. The Insurance Company contended that both the claimant and the vehicle owner have colluded together to cause loss to them. It was further contended that the claim was a fictitious one and that the F.I.R had been lodged after two months from the date of alleged accident. The entire criminal proceedings were managed by the parties in collusion to give a colour of reality for the alleged accident. The Tribunal fixed the responsibility on the driver of the motorcycle and accordingly fastened the liability. The reason for the delay in lodging complaint after two months was that immediately after the accident, he was admitted to a private clinic for first aid and then he was moved to Puthur and other places for treatment and therefore, he could not lodge the complaint immediately. Though two names wee specifically mentioned in the F.I.R., both of them were not examined to speak about the accident. The delay in lodging the FIR was not explained in the chief examination,. However, during the cross examination, he tried to justify the same, stating that he gone to various places for treatment. Further, during cross-examination though the claimant had spoken to about the treatment in Tamil Nadu Hospital and obtained a discharge summary on two occasions, they were not produced. However, during the cross examination, he tried to justify the same, stating that he gone to various places for treatment. Further, during cross-examination though the claimant had spoken to about the treatment in Tamil Nadu Hospital and obtained a discharge summary on two occasions, they were not produced. Further, the claimant was not able to give the details as to who had admitted him in the private clinic. In those circumstances, this Court observed that though he had adequate knowledge to lodge a complaint to the Police, he had not approached the Police and therefore, held that the reason for the delay in lodging the FIR has not been properly explained. In these circumstances, the Court examined the evidence let in by the claimant that one Thiru. Sivakumar pleaded guilty and paid the fine for allegedly causing the accident. Eventhough the said Sivakumar was accused for the offence, he filed his counter as if some other person was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The judgment of the Criminal Court, showing admission by the accused of the offence, was not adverted to by the Tribunal. But, the Tribunal simply concluded the matter holding that the driver was responsible for the accident. In these background, a learned single Judge of this Court, held that “In the absence of no other supporting factors, mere oral evidence of the claimant and the Criminal Court judgment on admission of the accused will not stand for a minute’s scrutiny and it could not be held to support the claim” Following the judgment of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Balasubramanian (2007) 6 MLJ 585 : 2007 (2) TN MAC 399, the learned single Judge in New India Assurance Company Ltd. V. Sekar and Another (supra), further observed that at p. 880 of MLJ: “17…..even though the judgment of the Criminal Court is an outcome of admission by the accused, if the facts were proved to be incorrect or false then there is no need for the Court to rely upon it. In the considered opinion of the Court, the admission is tainted with incorrect of acts and the same could not form basis for the Court to make observation in favour of the claimant.” 32. In the considered opinion of the Court, the admission is tainted with incorrect of acts and the same could not form basis for the Court to make observation in favour of the claimant.” 32. There is no quarrel over the preposition of law that the Tribunal shall not base his conclusion solely on the basis of admission of the accused and the conviction before the Criminal Court and that it is obligatory on the part of the claimants to let in adequate evidence to show that the driver was responsible for the accident and mere acceptance of the guilt before the criminal Court would not establish negligence. 33. In New India Assurance Company Ltd., v. Ammaiyan (supra), I had an occasion to consider a case, where the involvement of the vehicle was disputed by the Insurance Company. In the said case, the registration number of the vehicle was not mentioned in the FIR and it was further contended that the claimants have failed to prove the involvement of the vehicle itself. Following the decisions in Laxmi Gontiya and Another v. Nand Lal Tahalramani and Others 1999 ACJ 241 , Raju v. Sardar Singh and Another 2005 (III) ACC 138 and on the basis of the pleadings and evidence let in particularly, P.W.2, an eye-witness, who had spoken about the manner of accident that an unnumbered vehicle dashed against the deceased, this Court held that’ “Merely because the complainant has not mentioned the registration number of the vehicle and the name of the driver in the FIR does not mean that thee is no accident.” 34. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to extract the relevant passages from the above referred judgment in New India Assurance Company Ltd v. Ammaiyan (supra), “10. In Laxmi Gontiya and Another v. Nand Lal Tahalramani and Others (supra), a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has considered the issue as to whether the non-mentioning of the Registration Number of the offending vehicle is fatal to the claim. At paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment, the Court held as follows: “9. …Merely because the registration number, if not mentioned in the first information report, testimony of the witnesses cannot be discarded as it is well settled that the first information report is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is not an encyclop0aedia. At paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment, the Court held as follows: “9. …Merely because the registration number, if not mentioned in the first information report, testimony of the witnesses cannot be discarded as it is well settled that the first information report is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is not an encyclop0aedia. The object of first information report from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion. From the point of view of investigating authorities, It is to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity so as to able to take suitable steps for tracing and bringing to book the guilty party. In Kusum Kali v. Bhailal Tiwari, M.A. No. 465 of 1995; decided on 11. 1996, where the registration number was not mentioned in the first information report, this Court has observed that mere non-mention of number in the first information report would not be fatal, if otherwise it is established that they vehicle was involved in the accident. 10. Inmotor accident cases where the litigant persons are illiterate, if the Tribunal finds that the evidence led is not sufficient to establish the involvement of the vehicle which causes the accident, in our opinion, it would be proper for the Tribunal giving a helping hand by directing the party to lead evidence in accordance with the requirement of law, as it is well settled that a Court or Tribunal is not to act as an umpire watching a battle of wits between the parties from a distance through telescope. He Court is charged with the responsibility of guiding the procedure and apprising he parties whenever necessary of their duties. As legal procedure is full of traps; if a litigant happens to stumble, the Courts should discharge its responsibility except when this is the result of an attempt to be clever and over-reach the Court or to do something in-equitable to the other side. In the latter event the party concerned should be dealt with severely.” 11. In Raju v. Sardar Singh and Another (supra), the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that even the absence of Registration number in the First Information Report, if thee is clear oral evidence that the vehicle was involved in the accident, compensation has to be awarded. 12. In the latter event the party concerned should be dealt with severely.” 11. In Raju v. Sardar Singh and Another (supra), the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that even the absence of Registration number in the First Information Report, if thee is clear oral evidence that the vehicle was involved in the accident, compensation has to be awarded. 12. In the present case, though the appellant-Insurance Company has disputed the involvement of the vehicle, but in Paragraph No. 3 of the affidavit, they have admitted the involvement of the vehicle insured with them and blanled the deceased for his negligence. Once they have admitted the involvement of the vehicle in their counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal, it is not open to them to advance any argument contrary to their pleading. The Insurance Company cannot approbate and reprobate.” 35. Perusal of the judgments relied on by both the learned counsel for the parties make ti clear that a claim petition cannot be rejected, merely because the registration number of the vehicle is not mentioned in the FIR and that the testimony of the witnesses, cannot be discarded, as FIR is not a substantive peace of evidence. Time and again; Courts hve held that the object of the FIR from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion and it is for the Investigating Authorities to collect information to take suitable action against the offender. 36. The Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Laxmi Gontiya and Another v. Nand Lal Tahalramani and Others (supra), has further observed that, “In motor accident cases, where the litigant persons are illiterate, if the Tribunal finds that the evidence led is not sufficient to establish the involvement of the vehicle which causes the accident, in our opinion, it would be proper for the Tribunal giving a helping hand by directing the party to lead evidence in accordance with the requirement of-law, as it is well settled that a Court or Tribunal is not to act as an unpire watching a battle of wits between the parties from a distance through telescope. .37. .37. In the above legal background and on the facts of the present case, a duty is cast on this Court to find out as to whether the claimants, irrespective of the charge sheet have proved the involvement of the vehicle and the negligence of Bajaj M80 Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 07 W 3402. Admittedly, in Exhibit P-1-FIR, Exhibit P-3-Accident Register and Exhibit P-4-Rough Sketch of the place of occurrence, the registration number of the vehicle was not given by the complainant or the person, who took the injured to the hospital. However, unlike in the reported case, relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, there is no inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, as it is evident from Exhibit P-1-FIR that the accident had occurred at 11.55 Hours, and on the same day around 17.00 Hrs., a complaint had been lodged with the Police, Traffic Investigation Wing. Therefore, at this juncture, neither the informant to the Police or Mr. G. Rajaiyyan, motorcyclist and the pillion rider, Sabapathy, who admitted the injured in the hospital, were not in a position to furnish the registration number to the claimants or to the Police. However, the police, on investigation, has laid Exhibit P-3-Charge sheet against one Mr. Balaji, rider of Bajaj M80. .38. It is not in dispute that the name and particulars of P.W.2, does not figure in the claim petition. However, he has let in evidence, narrating the manner of accident. According to him, on 111. 2002, the Scooterist was proceeding towards Kotturpuram, from South to North on the left side of the road. The rider of Bajaj M 80, who was carrying a water can, came from behind and dashed against the scooterist and in the result the scooterist sustained head injury. Immediately thereafter, the injured was sent to the; hospital in an Autorickshaw. He has further deposed that he has noted down the registration number. It is his further evidence that based on the details in the visiting card to the injured, he gave information to his residence. During cross-examination to his residence. During cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not receive any summons from the Criminal Court and though he had witnessed the accident he has not laid any complaint to the Police. It is his further evidence that based on the details in the visiting card to the injured, he gave information to his residence. During cross-examination to his residence. During cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not receive any summons from the Criminal Court and though he had witnessed the accident he has not laid any complaint to the Police. However, P.W.2, has specifically denied the suggestion made by the appellant-Insurance Company, regarding his presence at the time of accident. In this context, it is necessary to extract the portion of his oral testimony and it reads as follows: .TAMIL 39. Perusal of the cross-examination of P.W.1, wife of the deceased, shows that the appellant-Insurance Company has not posed any question to her, as to how P.W.2, was brought in, to speak about the occurrence and the involvement of Bajaj M80 Motorcycle. The appellant-Insurance Company has suggested to the said witness that the Police has implicated a vehicle, which is insured with the Company for the purpose of claim and for that suggestion, P.W.1, has replied that she is not aware of the same. Perusal of the cross-examination of P.W.2, also does not indicate as to whether the appellant-Insurance Company has elucidated any material doubting the bona fides of P.W.2 as to how and in what circumstances, he was called upon to give evidence, in support of the documents. 40. Admittedly, P.W.1, has not given much of details about the presence of P.W.2 in the claim petition. But when P.W.2, narrated the manner of accident, his oral evidence was found to be cogent and natural. There is no contradiction in the evidence of P.W.2 about the manner of accident, as set out in Exhibit P-1-FIR, said to have been given by Mr. G. Rajaiyyan and that apart, the witness has also furnished the registration number of the vehicle. According to him, he had informed the kith and kin of the deceased about the accident with the address noted from the visiting card of the deceased and therefore, there is every possibility for the respondents/claimants to seek for the assistance of P.W.2, to let in evidence on their behalf regarding the involvement of Bajaj M80. 41. It could be noted that even if Mr. 41. It could be noted that even if Mr. G. Rajaiyyan, first informant to the Police and Sabapathy, the person, who had admitted the injured in the hospital, were examined on behalf of the respondents/claimants, they would not in a position to furnish the registration number of the offending vehicle, as both of them only saw the deceased lying on the road, in a pool of blood and took him to the hospital for emergency treatment. Therefore, in the absence of any doubt regarding the bona fides of P.W.2 and elucidating materials in the cross-examination about his presence at the time of accident, there is no reason to discard his evidence summarily. After setting the law in motion, the Police, on investigation, has laid a charge sheet in Exhibit P-2, against one Mr. Balaji, owner of Bajaj M80 Motorcycle. 42. An accident could have been witnessed by many people, but it cannot be expected that all of them would go to the Police Station to lodge complaint. In the case on hand, one Mr. Rajaiyyan, had already lodged a complaint with the Police. During the course of investigation, it is for the Police to collect materials, statement from the concerned and prepare a final report, involving the offending vehicle and its driver. 43. Again, it is not necessary that all those, who had witnessed the accident. Should be examined as witnesses before the Criminal Court. It is for the Police to collect the best evidence for recording conviction against the offender, as strict proof of evidence is required only before the Criminal Court. In such view of the matter. If the Police had chosen not to examine P.W.2, as one of their witnesses before the Criminal Court, that cannot be put against the claimants as one of the reasons to discard his evidence let in before the Claims Tribunal. It is not also necessary that those, who are included as witnesses by the Police before the Criminal Court should also be examined before the Claims Tribunal for arriving at the conclusion of negligence Needless to say that the standard of proof required is entirely different from the Criminal Court. 44. At this juncture, it is useful to extract the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. 44. At this juncture, it is useful to extract the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. K. Balasubramanian (supra), wherein, this Court held as follows: “It is a well settled proposition of law that the judgment of the Criminal Courts are neither binding on the Civil Court/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal no relevant in a Civil Case or a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, except for the limited purpose of showing “that thee was a criminal prosecution which ended in conviction or acquittal. But there is an exception to the general rule. When an accused pleads guilty and is convicted based on his admission, the judgment of the Criminal Court becomes admissible and relevant in Civil proceedings and proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, not because it is a judgment of the Criminal Court, but as a document containing an admission. Of course, admissions are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted therein. But unless and until they are proved to be in correct or false by the person against whom the admissions are sought to be used as evidence, the same shall be the best piece of evidence.” 45. As per the above said Division Bench judgment, admissions made before the Criminal Court are not conclusive proof of what is admitted therein, unless and until, they are proved to be incorrect or false on the person against whom, the admissions are sought to be used as evidence. Conversely, if the admission or conviction based on pleading guilty is not proved to be incorrect or false, then the same shall be the best peace of evidence. In the case on hand, there is no doubt regarding the accident for the reason that Exhibit P-1-FIR, Exhibit P-3-Accident Register and Exhibit P-4-Sketch, were prepared immediately after the accident. A charge sheet has also been laid against one Mr.Balaji, rider of Bajaj M80 motorcycle insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. The appellant-Insurance Company has not let in any oral or documentary evidence, rebutting the manner of accident. 46. Inthe normal course, if there was any doubt regarding the involvement of the vehicle in an accident, the Insurance Company would engage an Investigator to find out the manner of accident which apparently has not been done in the present case. The appellant-Insurance Company has not let in any oral or documentary evidence, rebutting the manner of accident. 46. Inthe normal course, if there was any doubt regarding the involvement of the vehicle in an accident, the Insurance Company would engage an Investigator to find out the manner of accident which apparently has not been done in the present case. If thee was any suspicion, a request could have been made to the Police or some other Investigating Agency to re-do the investigation properly. In the case on hand, apparently, no such exercise has been done by the appellant-Insurance Company. Had the Insurance Company taken any steps to examine the owner of Bajaj M80 or the Inspector of Police, who laid charge against the rider of the above said vehicle and proved that the laying of charge sheet, as per Exhibit P-4, is incorrect or false, then the said document can be said to be not conclusive proof of the facts contained therein. 47. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, particularly, failure on the part of the appellant-Insurance company to prove the case of the respo0ndents/claimants as false, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents/claimants have let in adequate evidence to substantiate the involvement of the vehicle, i.e., Bajaj M80 Motorcycle and the negligence on the part of the rider of the said Vehicle. Therefore, there is no serious infirmity or manifest illegality in arriving at the conclusion of the negligence against the rider, whose vehicle was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, at the time of accident. 48. In these circumstances, this Court is now inclined to proceed with the issue as to whether the quantum of compensation has been properly arrived at or not. Before the Tribunal, wife of the deceased, was examined as P.W.1 and she deposed that prior to the accident, her husband was running a Engineering Unit in the name and style of K.K. Engineering and earned Rs. 10,000/-per month. In support of her contention, she has produced Exhibit P-11-Bill Books. Per contra, it is the contention of tile learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that there were no books of accounts, bank accounts, etc., to substantiate the income of the deceased. 49. It is evident from Exhibit P-10, that the deceased ws a graduate. Per contra, it is the contention of tile learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that there were no books of accounts, bank accounts, etc., to substantiate the income of the deceased. 49. It is evident from Exhibit P-10, that the deceased ws a graduate. Perusal of Exhibit P-11, Note Book shows that the entries have been made from the year 2000 onwards and the said Engineering Works seemed to have engaged in cutting, gratings making and fixing metal sheets. The charges for the said works, vary from Rs. 164/- to Rs. 7,110/-. In some days, even cheque payments have been made. Except for one or two Companies, the deceased had taken orders regularly from Arudra Engineering (P) Ltd., Manapakkam, Chennai-116. The bill book was for the period from April 2000 to 211. 2002. Perusal of the entries made for a period of two years and above, shows that the deceased was running an engineering unit and regular payments have been made by Arudra Engineering (P) Ltd., Manapakkam, Chennai-116 and cheque payments % were also made for the Engineering Works done in the suit owned by the deceased. 50. As per the entries in Exhibit P-12-SSLC Book, the deceased was aged 48 years, at the time of accident. Though there is no other material document produced before the Tribunal to support the avocation of the deceased, there is no reason, as to why the oral testimony of the respondents/claimants, corroborated by Exhibit P-11-Bill Book should be rejected for the sole reason that there were no books of accounts or Bank accounts, produced by the claimants. Needless to say that there are many skilled workers, like carpenters, plumbers, electricians, lathe workers and many other artisans, do not maintain bank accounts, but still continue to be self-employed and earn their bread and butter to maintain their families. Merely because, the respondents/claimants did not produce any material to show that the deceased maintained bank accounts, that cannot be the reason to discard the very existence of an Engineering Unit, rand income earned from the said business. The deceased, being the owner of the Engineering unit and engaged in Metal cutting and grating, certainly cannot be compared with any unskilled casual labourer or even an construction worker to fix the notional income at Rs. 3,000/-. 51. The deceased, being the owner of the Engineering unit and engaged in Metal cutting and grating, certainly cannot be compared with any unskilled casual labourer or even an construction worker to fix the notional income at Rs. 3,000/-. 51. If the deceased had to maintain an Engineering unit, naturally, he would have required the assistance of some helper and paid reasonable wages per day. Even assuming that such an helper was paid Rs. 75/- as wage per day. The employer would have earned more than Rs. 200/- to meet out the electricity and other incidental charges for running the unit. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the determination of the monthly income by the Tribunal at Rs. 6,000/- for the purpose of computation of dependency compensation cannot be said to be arbitrary or without any basis. 52. At the time of accident, the deceased was survived by his wife, aged 36 years, minor sons, aged about 15 and 9 respectively and mother, aged 64 years. The Tribunal, while estimating the loss of family contribution, has deducted 1/3 rd from his salary. But, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC), if the number of dependants is 4 to 6; then 1/4th of the annual income ought to have been deducted for arriving at the dependency compensation. As per the second schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act the proper multiplier for the age group of persons between 45 and 50 years, is ‘13’. Therefore, the Tribunal by applying ‘13’ and after 1/3 rd deduction, has computed the dependency compensation at Rs. 6,24,000/-. However, if the decision made in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra) is followed, then the dependency compensation works out to Rs. 7,02,000/- (Rs. 6,000/- x 12 x 13 x ¾). 53. In addition to the dependency compensation, a sum of Rs. 57,784/- has been awarded towards medical expenses and it is supported by Exhibit P08, Medical Bills. It should be noted that two days after the accident, the deceased died on 111. 2002. That apart, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,000/- for Funeral Expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of Love and Affection and Rs. 5,000/- for transportation. In all, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. It should be noted that two days after the accident, the deceased died on 111. 2002. That apart, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,000/- for Funeral Expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of Love and Affection and Rs. 5,000/- for transportation. In all, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,93,784/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 54. Apparently, the Tribunal has failed to award a reasonable compensation to the first respondent-Widow, who has the lost consortium of her husband and burdened with the responsibility to raise two minor sons, without any support from him. Even the mother-in-law was aged 64 years at the time of accident. ‘Consortium‘, as per Best v. Samuel Fox (1952) AC 716, means “Duty owned by a wife to her husband and vice versa, companionship, love and affection, comfort, mutual services, sexual intercourse, etc.”. In Smt. Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra), the Supreme Court held that the conventional damages towards loss of consortium would be to a maximum of Rs. 10,000/-. 55. The minor children and the fourth respondent-mother has lost the love and affection of the deceased. Conspicuously, the Tribunal has failed to award a reasonable compensation under the said head. The accident has occurred on 111. 2002 and even the funeral Expenses of Rs. 2,000/-is inadequate. Thus, it could be seen that if the method followed in Smt. Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra), for computation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss is made, then the quantum of compensation, would certainly be higher than the one, awarded by the Tribunal and in such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal does not require any reduction. 56. In the light of the above discussion, the finding of the Tribunal, regarding involvement of the vehicle, negligence on the rider and the consequential liability on the appellant-Insurance Company and the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal are all confirmed. Hence, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 57. Record of proceedings shows that while ordering notice, regarding admission, this Court, by order, dated 112. 2007, in M.P.Mo.1 of 2007, has granted interim stay, subject to the condition that the appellant-Insurance Company deposits a sum of Rs. Hence, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 57. Record of proceedings shows that while ordering notice, regarding admission, this Court, by order, dated 112. 2007, in M.P.Mo.1 of 2007, has granted interim stay, subject to the condition that the appellant-Insurance Company deposits a sum of Rs. 5.00,000/-, less the amount, if any, already deposited, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No. 2426 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Court of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, No. 2) Madras, within the stipulated time. It is presumed that the said order would have been complied with. 158. In view of the decision of this Court, confirming the award, the appellant-insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance award amount with the proportionate accrued interests and costs, to the credit of the above said claim petition. On such deposit being made, except the minors, the other respondents/claimants are permitted to withdraw the share apportioned to them, together with accrued interest. The share apportioned to the minors shall be deposited in a fixed deposit under the reinvestment scheme, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the interest accruing on the deposit shall be paid to the mother and natural guardian, once in three months, till they attain majority. No costs. Appeal dismissed.