Judgment : These three appeals have been filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited, which is the second respondent in the claim petition before the Tribunal and the cross objections have been filed by the claimants in each case against the award dated 26.10.2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in O.P.Nos.348, 347 and 343 of 2004. 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the insurance company and the learned counsel appearing for the claimants/cross objectors. 3. The brief facts leading to filing of the claim petitions before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the claimants in each case may be stated as follows: On the intervening night of 30/01.05.2004 while the deceased viz. Sara Prabhu, his wife Andolamma, his daughter Sara Soni and his son were returning on Luna moped bearing No.APB 3335 after attending a function, and when they reached the outskirts of Sadasivapet town, an Eicher van bearing No. AP 28 T 4883 driven by the owner himself in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side, dashed the Luna moped, due to which the three deceased viz. Sara Prabhu, his wife Andolamma, and his daughter Sara Soni fell down, received grievous injuries and died instantaneously. The Luna moped was also damaged in the accident. Basing on the evidence of PW.2, an eyewitness to the accident, the leaned Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Eicher Van bearing No. AP 28 T 4883 belonging to the first respondent, which was insured with the appellant/insurance company. The learned Tribunal accordingly held that the owner of the said van, who is the respondent No.1 and the appellant/insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4. The said finding is assailed by the insurance company in these appeals contending that the Eicher van bearing No.AP 28 T 4883 was not at all involved in the accident and it was implicated by the police as an afterthought, so as to enable the claimants to claim compensation from the first respondent and the appellant/insurance company. Thus, the finding that the accident occurred due to involvement of the Eicher van bearing No.AP 28 T 4883, is sought to be set aside in these appeals. Thus, the finding that the accident occurred due to involvement of the Eicher van bearing No.AP 28 T 4883, is sought to be set aside in these appeals. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company that the accident occurred on the intervening night of 30/01.05.2004, in fact, nobody had witnessed the accident, PW.2 was planted as an eyewitness by the claimants. It has been further contended that the accident occurred on the intervening night of 30/01.05.2004 and the FIR was lodged on 01.05.2004 i.e. on the next day without furnishing the number of the vehicle which was involved in the accident, subsequently, a charge sheet was filed by the police naming PW.2 as eyewitness. It has also been contended that since four persons were travelling on the Luna moped, the deceased Sara Prabhu, who was driving the vehicle had no valid driving licence, there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, who was driving the said vehicle, and the learned Tribunal ought to have recorded a finding that the appellant/insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 5. Admittedly, four persons i.e. Sara Prabhu his wife Andolamma, his daughter Sara Soni and his son were proceeding on Luna moped, when it was knocked down by the Eicher van bearing No. AP 28 T 4883 and no proof has been placed on record by the insurance company, that the deceased Sara Prabhu, who was driving the Luna Moped had no valid driving licence. In any event, the Tribunal has recorded a specific finding basing on the evidence available on record that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Eicher van bearing No. AP 28 T 4883 while the deceased were proceeding on the Luna moped. Absolutely, there was no material on record to show that the accident was due to the fault of the deceased Sara Prabhu, who is driving the Luna moped, though four persons were proceeding on the Luna moped. The learned Tribunal has specifically recorded a finding that while the four persons were proceeding on the Luna moped, an Eicher van on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver/first respondent dashed the Luna moped and three persons died instantaneously. The persons, who were proceeding on the Luna moped are third parties. The learned Tribunal has specifically recorded a finding that while the four persons were proceeding on the Luna moped, an Eicher van on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver/first respondent dashed the Luna moped and three persons died instantaneously. The persons, who were proceeding on the Luna moped are third parties. The facts, namely, that the accident occurred as four persons were travelling on the Luna moped which is contrary to the stipulations of the policy of the said vehicle and that the person, who was driving the said vehicle had no valid driving licence have nothing to do with the cause of accident. 6. The question requires consideration is as to whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Eicher van or whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the person driving the luna moped. When once the Tribunal arrived at a specific finding that the accident was solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Eicher van, the questions namely four persons were travelling on Luna moped and the person who was driving the Luna moped had no valid driving licence are inconsequential and on the said score, the finding of the learned Tribunal below as to how the accident had happened cannot be reversed. It is not possible for this Court, basing on the evidence available on record to arrive at a decision that the deceased themselves had contributed to the accident. 7. As regards the other question as to the involvement of the vehicle, merely because the FIR was lodged by the eyewitness on the next day without furnishing the number of the vehicle involved in the accident, if subsequently, it was found that the Eicher van baring No.AP 28 T 4883 was involved in the accident, the said finding shall not be interfered with in the present appeals. 8. 8. PW.2 stated in his evidence before the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred at midnight, that he was an auto driver, he was coming from Nizampur to Sadasivapet by driving the auto along with the passengers, the deceased, his wife and children were proceeding ahead to Sadasivapet on a Luna moped, while the Luna moped was at a distance of 30 yards ahead of him, a DCM van belonging to the respondent No.1 came and hit the Luna moped, due to which the Luna moped fell down, the person, who was driving the Luna, the wife, one child died on the spot, a small child which was also along with them survived. 9. Though according to RW.1 a Senior Assistant in the appellant/insurance company, they have appointed investigator to investigate into the manner of occurrence of the accident, no investigation report was filed by the appellant/insurance company. It is also borne out from the evidence on record that after the accident the vehicle was detained by Sadasivapet police and it was examined by the Motor Vehicle Inspector within 10 hours of the accident in the Police Station, Sadasivapet. It is also an admitted fact that in O.P.No.550 of 2004 arising out of the same accident which is filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act the appellant/insurance company deposited the amount due to the claimants in the said case and they also deposited the amount relating to no fault liability in respect of the three deaths in the present appeals. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants relied on SAROJ AND OTHERS v HETLAL AND OTHERS (2011)1 SCC 388 )in the said case, the Tribunal dismissed the claim holding that it was a case of hit-and-run by some unknown vehicle, the FIR was filed after 18 hours of the accident by the brother of the deceased, alleging involvement of unknown vehicle, that the evidence of PW.1, the alleged eyewitness is not trustworthy since he did not take any steps to go to the police station after having seen the accident and that the statement was recorded by the police 20 days after the accident. The High Court repeated the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the Supreme Court, however, held that the admission by the owner of the vehicle about its involvement is binding on the driver and the version of the driver that vehicle being driven by him was not involved in the accident cannot be accepted since he was facing criminal prosecution for causing the accident. 11. Further, the learned counsel relied on a decision in KUSUM LATA AND OTHERS v SATBIR AND OTHERS (2011)3 SCC 646 )wherein it was held as follows: “the fact viz. the driver not noting down the number of offending vehicle and instead taking victim for medical aid is normal human conduct. The non disclosure of the number of the offending vehicle and the name of its driver in the first information report was not material and that the Courts below were wrong in holding that if the name of the witness is not mentioned in the first information report. It was not possible for him to have witnessed the incident.” 12. In the instant cases also, merely because there is some delay in lodging the first information report, the involvement of the vehicle cannot be doubted. Non disclosure of the number of the vehicle in the first information report is no ground to discard the testimony of the eyewitness, who is an auto driver, claims to have witnessed the incident while driving the auto with passengers. He had specifically stated before the Tribunal below that one of the passengers of the auto ran to the police station and informed the involvement of the Eicher van in the accident. Further, as already said, the crime vehicle was detained by Sadasivapet Police soon after the accident and it was inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector within 10 hours after the accident. Making deposit of compensation by the insurance company without any protest in one case arising out of the accident and also depositing the amount under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act in all three present cases amounts to admission on the part of the insurance company about the involvement of the DCM van bearing No. AP 28 T 4883 in the accident. The learned tribunal in my view has rightly recorded a finding that DCM van bearing No. AP 28 T 4883 was involved in the accident and the said finding needs no interference in these appeals. The learned tribunal in my view has rightly recorded a finding that DCM van bearing No. AP 28 T 4883 was involved in the accident and the said finding needs no interference in these appeals. 13. There is no basis for the contention that the owner of the DCM van colluded with the claimants. Absolutely there is no material placed on record by the insurance company in proof of the said version. In such a situation, the finding of the Tribunal that the evidence of PW.2 is trustworthy and reliable shall not be interfered with in the present appeals. 14. The cross-objections have been filed by the claimants in each case on the ground that the compensation granted by the Tribunal below is not adequate and not just and reasonable. 15. In M.A.C.M.A.No.735 of 2004, it was claimed by the claimant that the deceased was aged 30 years and was discharging duties as helper in the Excise Department and earning an amount of Rs. 6,000/-per month. They claimed compensation of Rs.4 lakhs against which the learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.3 lakhs with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The learned Tribunal found that in the postmortem report-Ex.A.4 the age of the deceased was mentioned as 35 years. In the absence of any documentary proof, the learned Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs.2,400/-per month and made deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses and awarded compensation of Rs.3 lakhs with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation as against the claim of Rs.4 lakhs. Similarly in MA.C.M.A.No.736 of 2007, the deceased was said to be doing the tailoring work and was earning Rs.4,000/-to 5,000/-per month. But, no document is placed on record to show the income of the deceased. As per Ex.A.3 postmortem report her age was mentioned as 30 years. The learned Tribunal rightly assessed her income at Rs.2,100/-and made 1/3rd deduction towards personal and living expenses and granted compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-as against the claim of Rs. 3 lakhs with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. As per Ex.A.3 postmortem report her age was mentioned as 30 years. The learned Tribunal rightly assessed her income at Rs.2,100/-and made 1/3rd deduction towards personal and living expenses and granted compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-as against the claim of Rs. 3 lakhs with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. In M.A.C.M.A.No.737 of 2007, the deceased was aged 9 years and against the claim of Rs.1,10,000/-, the learned Tribunal rightly awarded compensation of R.65,000/-with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The compensation granted by the learned Tribunal being just and reasonable and having been computed properly, needs no interference in the present appeals. 16. With the above, the appeals and the cross-objections filed by the parties are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.