Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short-'RSRTC') aggrieved by the award dated 28.1.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawaimadhopur whereby the claimant respondents have been awarded a compensation of Rs.4,67,000. 2. Shri V.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the vehicle of the appellant-RSRTC has been falsely shown involved in the present case, whereas it was some private bus and realising the fact that the bus did not have the insurance, the claimants have manipulated the matter by showing involvement of the bus of appellant-RSRTC. He argued that even though the bus of the appellant was seized, but ultimately the police in the charge sheet concluded that the accident took place with bus no.RJ 29/P 1297 whereas the number that was disclosed by AW-3 Chotu, brother of the deceased was RJ 29/TI 1297. Learned counsel submitted that this fact is corroborated from the newspaper report that was published in the Rajasthan Patrika on the following day i.e. on 11.9.2008 that the Hanuman Jat aged 25 years died due to fall from a private bus. Learned counsel argued that evidence of NAW-1 Ram Nath, driver of the bus has not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal, who has denied the factum of involvement of roadways bus, but has contrarily stated that the death caused due to fall from a private bus, of which news item-Ex.NA-1 was published on 11.9.2008. 3. Learned counsel further argued that age of the deceased in fact was 35 years as is evident from column no.3 of the claim petition. The Tribunal ought to have therefore computed the compensation by accepting that age and applying the multiplier of 16, whereas the Tribunal in the present case has committed an illegality in applying the multiplier of 18. Learned counsel argued that mere fact that roadways bus in question was being plied on the route in question on the day of accident does not prove its involvement. His argument is that the claimants have precisely tried to take advantage of this fact when they realized that the private bus could not be prosecuted for compensation as it was not insured. 4. His argument is that the claimants have precisely tried to take advantage of this fact when they realized that the private bus could not be prosecuted for compensation as it was not insured. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that while the accident took place on 10.9.2008, the roadways bus in question was seized on 25.9.2008 and in the mechanical inspection report of the bus no dent, nor any other mark suggesting its involvement in the accident could be found. 5. On the contrary, Shri Tarun Jain, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal and argued that the accident took place on 10.9.2008 at 1.00 PM. The brother of the deceased AW-3 Chotu immediately took the deceased to the hospital in seriously injured condition wherein his statement was taken and he died. The FIR of the accident was lodged on the same day, which is Ex.1. In the FIR, the factum of accident with roadways bus no.RJ 29/TI 1297 was given and it was also mentioned that the roadways driver did not stop and immediately fled from there with the bus. It could not be that on the same day, the number was given and it was also mentioned that the roadways bus was involved and all that was done was by manipulating the things. The claimants could not have manipulated the bus number because the police has filed charge sheet against the same Ram Nath NAW-1. In the earlier part of the charge sheet the number of bus is mentioned as RJ 29/TI 1297, whereas in the bottom part the number RJ 29/P 1297 has been mentioned, which may have been due to clerical mistake whereas in the same charge sheet, reference is made to the seizure memo Ex.7 and also the notice u/s.133 of the Motor Vehicles Act served on the Depot Manager, Dausa Ex.6 indicates the number as RJ 29/P 1297. In reply to the said notice the Depot Manager admitted that it was Ram Nath NAW-1 who was the driver of the bus at the time of accident. Learned counsel argued that the allegation is that the roadways bus hit the deceased and not that he fell from the bus. In fact in an accident like this, there is no possibility of mark of dents or otherwise found on the bus. Learned counsel argued that the allegation is that the roadways bus hit the deceased and not that he fell from the bus. In fact in an accident like this, there is no possibility of mark of dents or otherwise found on the bus. As regards the blood marks, learned counsel submitted that it would not have been possible after the delay of 15 days when the bus was seized. 6. Learned counsel argued that mention of 35 years as age of deceased in column-3 of claim petition was a typographical mistake, which was corrected at the time of filing of claim petition before the Tribunal itself by overwriting. The Tribunal has therefore not committed any error in considering the age of the deceased to be 35 years and applying the multiplier of 18. Learned counsel argued that mere newspaper report may not itself constitute the factum of accident by private bus, unless the same evidence was adduced by the appellant-non-claimants to show the involvement of the private bus as against the roadways bus. 7. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that Ex.1 FIR in the present case was lodged on the same day i.e. 10.9.2008. In the FIR, it is alleged by AW-3 Chotu, brother of the deceased that while his brother was going from farm house to Daulatpura at about 1.PM in the day, a bus coming from the side of Sawaimadhopur in a high speed, hit him from behind as a result of which he fell on the ground and bus tyre overran him. The informant Chotu and his uncle Ganpat immediately rushed to the side and they noticed bus no.RJ 29TI 1297 and that the fact that it was a roadways bus, but the driver fled from the accident site. They took the deceased, who was in seriously injured condition in a jeep to hospital at Sawaimadhopur. During treatment, however, he died. Having thus explained the time that was consumed before filing of the FIR, the FIR was yet filed on same day at 7.30 PM. All this version has been found to be prima facie proved by the police, who filed the charge sheet against Ram Nath, driver of the roadways bus where of course two different numbers of bus were mentioned. All this version has been found to be prima facie proved by the police, who filed the charge sheet against Ram Nath, driver of the roadways bus where of course two different numbers of bus were mentioned. But there are two facts that proves this to be a mere clerical error; one is that in the charge sheet reference is made to the same bus RJ 29P 1297, which was being driven by NAW-2 Ram Nath and second is that in the same charge sheet, the reference is made to notice u/s.133 of the Motor Vehicles Act. That notice is on record at Ex.6 which was served on Hanuman Sahai Pareek, the Depot Manager of Dausa Depot of RSRTC, who was asked to clarify who was driving bus no.RJ 29P 1297 at 1.PM on 10.9.2008 when the accident took place. The Depot Manager in his handwriting has replied to the notice that as per record Shri Ram Nath son of Shri Tota Ram Jat of Dausa Depot was driving the bus at the time of accident. All this has been proved by witness AW-2 Ganpat, uncle of deceased and AW-3 Chotu, the lodger of the FIR, presence of both of whom has been fully proved by the first version given in the FIR wherein they said that they took the deceased in seriously injured condition to hospital at Sawaimadhopur. Besides that in the postmortem report Ex.4, it has been mentioned that death took place on account of being hit by a bus and not from fall of the bus. 8. Although of course, learned counsel for the appellant has sought to raise a doubt about the involvement of the roadways bus by referring to Ex.NA-1, the newspaper report, but that newspaper was published on the following day i.e. 11.9.2008, but therein there is no reference to the fact of lodgement of FIR on 7.30 PM on the day of accident i.e. 10.9.2008 despite the fact that it was already lodged on that very day. No other evidence except mere furnishing of Ex.NA-1 newspaper report, has been produced to dislodge the evidence of claimants which both qualitatively and quantitatively outweigh the evidence of non-claimants. No other evidence except mere furnishing of Ex.NA-1 newspaper report, has been produced to dislodge the evidence of claimants which both qualitatively and quantitatively outweigh the evidence of non-claimants. The denial by the driver Ram Nath about involvement of the roadways bus is only natural because he is also facing trial in a criminal case and the police has filed charge sheet against him for offences u/s.279 and 304 of IPC 9. The allegation of the appellant that police may also have been won over by claimants, cannot be accepted on mere ipse dixit. The police cannot be held to be in league or collusion with the claimants because they have after thorough investigation into the matter filed charge sheet. 10. As regards the correct age of the deceased, from the record it does appear that though in the originally filed claim petition the age was typed out to be 35 years, which appears to have been done due to typographical error, but while filing the same, it has been corrected by overwriting by ink and made 25 years, which is further corroborated from the age of the widow of the deceased, which was mentioned in the claim petition to be 22 years and age of his son to be two and half years. I therefore do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.