RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the appellant insurance company against the award dated 5/3/2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer awarding a sum of Rs.3,37,500/- to claimant-respondent No.1 for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident, which took place on 19/4/2011 involving the vehicle insured with the appellant insurance company. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of driver of the motorcycle. Driver of the tractor was wrongly held to have been negligent since driver and owner of the tractor are residents of the same village to which claimant belongs. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal has erred in law while deciding Issue No.1 against the insurance company holding the driver of the tractor, which was insured with it, sole negligent for committing the accident. No independent eye witness was examined to prove the accident nor name of the motorcyclist was disclosed, who was driving the motorcycle. The investigation officer of the case has also not been examined. Learned Tribunal has erred in law while awarding excessive amount of compensation under Issue No.4. Medical officer has not been examined to prove the permanent disability of the claimant. Mere fact that charge sheet was filed against the driver of the tractor by the police, cannot be a reason to hold that it was tractor, which was involved in the accident. The accident took place on 21/5/2010 at about 8.00 a.m., whereas the FIR was lodged on the following day on 22/5/2010 at 6.15 p.m. with one day delay. Learned Tribunal erred in law while accepting the income of the claimant at Rs.3000/- per month and granted compensation. 3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned award, I find that delay of one day in lodgment of the FIR cannot be so significant to countenance the argument that the vehicle was not involved. In the present case, right leg of the injured was amputed above the knee due to the accident and that the accident was so severe, it is quite natural that delay of one day occurred because there was first priority to save the life of the injured. In the present case, right leg of the injured was amputed above the knee due to the accident and that the accident was so severe, it is quite natural that delay of one day occurred because there was first priority to save the life of the injured. Exb.84 the permanent disability certificate has proved the disability of the injured to be 70% and besides that, vide Exb.81, the injured was shown to have remained hospitalized from 21/5/2010 to 7/6/2010. His medical bills were also produced. He was awarded Rs.20,000/- for hospitalization and Rs.16,500/- for actual medical expenses. Though, claimant’s average income was Rs.15,000/- per month but the Tribunal has accepted only Rs.3,000/- as monthly income and has awarded Rs.18,000/- for loss of income during the period when the claimant remained bed ridden and taking 50% of the disability of whole body, applying the multiplier of 11, computed compensation of Rs.1,98,000/-. Additionally, Rs.1500/- was awarded for transportation. Rs.50,000/- was awarded for pain and suffering, which according to this Court appears to be on lower side, hence total compensation of Rs.3,37,500/- cannot be said to be excessive or otherwise unreasonable. 4. I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.