JUDGMENT 1. - Since all the aforesaid three appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 20-6-2000 passed by MACT, Jaipur, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19-1-1997 at around 9.15 PM, one Pradeep Punjabi, his wife Neelam and son Suneel were coming on Scooter No. RJ-14/13M- 1637 towards the Trimurti Chauraha. As the said scooter reached near the cycle-stand at Trimurti Chauraha, a truck bearing No. RRL- 2855 struck the said scooter from the rear side. Resultantly, all the three persons i.e. Pradeep Punjabi, Neelam and Suneel expired. 3. First Information Report was lodged, Claim Petition Nos. 732/1997, 733/1997 and 734/1997 were filed on account of death of Pradeep Punjabi, Neelam and Suneel respectively. Thereafter, notices were issued, written statement was filed, issues were framed, evidence was submitted and after hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned award, vide which in claim petition No. 732/1997 Rs. 5,79,000/- have been awarded in favour of claimant(s); in claim petition No.733/1997, Rs. 1,50,000/- have been awarded in favour of claimant(s); and in claim petition No. 734/ 1997, Rs. 1,00,000/- have been awarded in favour of claimant(s). 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the Insurance Company has filed three appeals challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in the aforesaid three claim petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the impugned judgment and award is contrary to the provisions of the Act, the pleadings of the parties, the facts and circumstances as have come on record as well as the law applicable in the wake of such facts and circumstances. He has further contended that the learned Tribunal also failed to take note of the fact that the claimant Lekhraj Punjabi intimated in writing about the registration number of the offending truck after a much delay of as much as one month subsequent to the accident having taken place. He further contended that the learned Tribunal also failed to take note of the fact that the reason for the delay in intimating the police about the registration number of the alleged offending truck was not at all credible. He further contended that the learned Tribunal also failed to take note of the fact that the reason for the delay in intimating the police about the registration number of the alleged offending truck was not at all credible. This goes to show that the claimants had manipulated the involvement of the alleged offending insured truck in the accident and the delay in reporting the registration number of the said truck had taken place on account of the aforesaid manipulation. He further contended that the oral testimony of AW-1 Pappu and AW-3 Prem Shankar cannot be relied upon Having witnessed the accident and noted the registration number of the alleged offending insured truck, they ought to have intimated the Police Station concerned itself instead of waiting for the identity of the victims or their relatives to be revealed to them. There are material contradictions in the testimony of AW-1 Pappu and AW-3 Prem Shanker. Therefore, the testimony of the aforesaid two witnesses ought not have been relied upon by the learned Tribunal. Hence, the impugned award needs to be set aside. 6. None is present for the claimants. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidence emerging on record and on perusal of the impugned award, I do not think it proper to interfere in the impugned award dated 20-6-2000 passed by the learned Tribunal. Hence, all the aforesaid three appeals fail and the same being bereft of any merit deserve to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly. 9. Consequent upon the dismissal of appeals, the stay applications, filed herewith, do not survive and they also stand dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******