Anil Kumar Sharma, J.;— The appellants who have lost their five years' son in the instant motor accident, have challenged the award dated 17.5.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, court no. 4, Bulandshahr in MACP No. 446 of 2009, whereby their claim petition has been dismissed. It appears that on 11.2.2009 Master Kapil aged 5 years, son of the claimants/appellants, was waiting for school bus after school hours outside Chaudary Veerpal Singh Uchchtar Madhyamik school, Bara, Bulandshahr. At about 1 P.M. Driver of the school bus no. UP 16K 9687, driving the vehicle rashly and negligently knocked down Kapil, who succumbed to the injuries on spot. Inquest upon cadaver of the deceased was performed and autopsy was also conducted. However, report of the accident was lodged on 21.10.2009 at police station Khurja Dehat being case crime no. 245 of 2009, against Dharmendra, driver of the aforesaid bus. The claimants filed the claim petition for award of Rs. 9,30,000/-. The owner and insurance company of the bus denied the factum of accident alleging that a false report with inordinate delay has been lodged in collusion with driver of the bus who is closely related to claimant no. 1. The insurance company also pleaded breach of contract of the insurance. The Tribunal framed the following issues for adjudication: @ Hindi @ In order to prove their case, the claimants have examined Sunil Kumar (father of the deceased) P.W.-1 and Pratap Singh as eye witness P.W.-2 while owner of the bus examined himself as D.W.-1. The claimants have also filed photo copy of the F.I.R., postmortem report, registration certificate, release order of the bus, insurance policy, permit, fitness certificate, order of ACJM passed on bail application of the driver, application submitted to the S.S.P., Bulandshahr and order of the Magistrate releasing the bus. Owner of the vehicle has filed photo copy of the registration certificate, fitness certificate, driving licence of the driver and insurance policy as also the inquest report. On behalf of the insurance company report of the investigator and Form no. 54 with regard to driving licence was filed. After hearing the parties and analysing the evidence in the case, learned Tribunal has found that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the bus no. On behalf of the insurance company report of the investigator and Form no. 54 with regard to driving licence was filed. After hearing the parties and analysing the evidence in the case, learned Tribunal has found that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the bus no. UP 16K 9687 and that entire story set up by the claimant regarding the accident, has been fabricated in collusion with driver of the case. It was further held that driver of the bus has no effective and valid driving licence on the date of accident. Since the claimants could not prove rash and negligent act/driving of the bus resulting in accident and death of Master Kapil, the claim petition had been dismissed by the Tribunal. Aggrieved the claimants have come up in appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and also perused the impugned award and the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants on 22.8.2012. The documents filed by the appellants in appeal show that no F.I.R. was lodged on the date of the accident. It appears that an information regarding accidental death by unknown vehicle was given to police by grandfather of the deceased and same day his father submitted an application to the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr for postmortem examination of the deceased and in that application too he has mentioned that the accident took place with some unknown vehicle. The F.I.R. of the accident has been lodged more than eight months after the accident against driver of the bus Dharmendra. It has come in the statement of father of the deceased Sunil Kumar alias Sonu P.W.-1 that he and Dharmendra had common ancestor (grandfather) Hari Singh. It was a day light accident which was allegedly witnessed by Pratap Singh P.W.-2 who is real brother-in-law (Bahnoi) of claimant no. 1. When claimant no. 1, driver of the offending bus and eye witness were so closely related to each other, then there was no reason for the claimants not to lodge F.I.R. of accident against driver of bus on the date of accident itself. There was no question of misidentity of driver of the bus if at all the accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving of the bus. There was no question of misidentity of driver of the bus if at all the accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving of the bus. It is important to note here that alleged eye witness Pratap Singh is a resident of village Nagla Cheeti whereas the accident took place in village Bara and the claimants belong to village Ram Nagar. This witness has not accompanied the injured/deceased to the hospital and he also does not know when inquest upon dead body of the deceased was performed. He has simply stated that he has gone to inform his brother-in-law to his village. This witness has admitted in cross examination that he is educated upto High School and knows that report of the accident is immediately given to the police, but even then he did not go to the police station to lodge report of the accident. Thus, conduct of this witness shows that he was not present at the alleged date, time and place of the accident and being a close relative of the claimants, had come up to depose before the Tribunal. Undoubtedly, like criminal trials, prompt lodging of F.I.R. regarding accident, is not necessary but inordinate delay of more than eight months in reporting the accident to the police against the driver who was a family member of father of the deceased, itself creates doubt about authenticity and truthfulness of the case of claimants with regard to manner of the accident. The claimants have not filed copy of the G.D. Report or copy of the information given to the police for inquest or postmortem examination of the deceased. Learned Tribunal has observed that in both these informations, it was mentioned that accident has taken place with an unknown vehicle. Registration number of the bus in F.I.R. was given as UP 16K 96 whereas the bus in question is UP 16K 9687. An explanation has been given for this lapse by the counsel for appellants during course of his arguments which is that due to mistake of the computer, incomplete numericals were noted in the check report and for its correction an application was given by claimant no. 1 to Station Officer, P.S. Khurja Dehat on 24.10.2009. The check report has been registered by the police on the basis of a written report of claimant no. 1 addressed to the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Khurja. 1 to Station Officer, P.S. Khurja Dehat on 24.10.2009. The check report has been registered by the police on the basis of a written report of claimant no. 1 addressed to the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Khurja. If in the check report registration number of the bus was incorrectly noted due to mistake of the computer, the appellants could have filed copy of their report on the basis of which check report was prepared by the police. It is pertinent to note here that computer simply obeys the command of the operator. If incorrect factual data is feeded in the computer, then computer cannot on its own correct it. It is significant to nore here that owner of the bus has also charged the claimants to have falsely implicated his bus in the instant accident because his driver was closely related with the claimants. This fact further fortifies the conclusion of the Tribunal that bus in question has been falsely roped in the instant accident. Thus, we find that learned Tribunal has not erred in dismissing claim petition of the appellants. Its findings are based on correct appreciation of the evidence led by the parties in the case. In view of what has been stated and done above, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed in limine. _____________