Ritu Raj Awasthi,J. Heard Mr. Tahir Abbas Rizvi, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Girish Kumar holding brief of Mr. Jai Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and order dated 22.4.2002 passed by the learned District Judge/Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raebareli in Motor Accident Claim No.165 of 1998 whereby a sum of Rs.1,73,300/- along with simple interest at the rate 9% per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents. 3. The accident had taken place on 2.5.1998 on Allahabad-Raibareli highway by the vehicle, Bus No.UP-70H/9501 belonging to appellant/U.P.S.R.T.C. The deceased Ram Autar while coming on bicycle was hit by the said bus from behind due to which had received grievous injuries and died on spot. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has relied on the sole eye witness who was an interested witness being the son of the deceased. The alleged vehicle was not involved in the accident as an entry about arrival of vehicle was recorded in the 'defect register' at U.P.S.R.T.C. workshop at Raibareli at 11.00 A.M. on 2.5.1998 whereas the said accident is said to have occurred at 11.15 A.M. on 2.5.1998. The learned Tribunal has not accepted the evidence produced in this regard by the appellant and has proceeded and awarded the compensation relying on the statement of Ram Lakhan. 5. Submission is that no proper efforts were made by the learned Tribunal to ascertain the involvement of the alleged vehicle in the accident. 6. It is also submitted that the amount of interest i.e.9% simple interest awarded by the Tribunal is higher and shall not be permitted to be paid by the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants, on the other hand, submitted that the Tribunal while considering in detail the evidence available on record has rightly come to the conclusion that the alleged accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle i.e. Bus No.UP-70H/9501. In the said accident Ram Autar had sustained injuries due to which he had died on spot. 8. It is also submitted that the evidence produced by the appellant was duly considered by the Tribunal and the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the said evidence is not admissible. 9. In the said accident Ram Autar had sustained injuries due to which he had died on spot. 8. It is also submitted that the evidence produced by the appellant was duly considered by the Tribunal and the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the said evidence is not admissible. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and gone through the records. 10. The short question involved in the appeal is whether the evidence produced by the appellant before the Tribunal was sufficient to indicate that the vehicle (Bus No.UP-70H/9501) was not involved in the said accident in which late Ram Autar had sustained injuries due to which he had died on the spot. 11. Learned Tribunal while deciding the said claim had framed certain issues including the issue no. 1 which on reproduction reads as under: "D;k fnukad 2-5-1998 dks le; 11-30 cts fnu jk;cjsyh&bykgkckn jksM ij dLck uokcxat esa ;kph la[;k&1 dk ifr ,oa ;kph la[;k&2 dk firk jke vkSrkj vk jgk Fkk rHkh jksMost dh cl la[;k ;wih 70 ,p@9501 dks mlds pkyd us rsth o ykijokgh ls yk dj Vddj ekj nh ftlls jke vkSrkj dks xEHkhj pksVsa vk;h vkSj ekSds ij gh mldh e`R;q gks xbZ\" 12. While deciding the said issue, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the witness Ram Lakhan is a natural witness to the said accident in which the deceased Ram Autar sustained injuries and had died on the spot. Mr. Ram Lakhan, may be an interested witness, however his presence at the place of occurrence of the accident is certified. The statement given by Ram Lakhan is credible and does not create any suspicion as the same tallies with narration of events disclosed by respondents-claimants. 13. The learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the evidence produced by the appellant i.e. 'defect register' is a photocopy, the original copy of which was filed. The said document was not certified by any competent authority, as such it was not admissible as an evidence. 14. It is to be noted that plying of the said vehicle on Allahabad-Raibareli highway where the said accident had taken place has not been denied. The said document was not certified by any competent authority, as such it was not admissible as an evidence. 14. It is to be noted that plying of the said vehicle on Allahabad-Raibareli highway where the said accident had taken place has not been denied. The only plea taken by learned counsel for appellant is that the vehicle was reported at the workshop of U.P.S.R.T.C. at 11.00 A.M. on 2.5.1998 whereas the said accident is said to have taken place at 11.15 A.M. As per the claimants and the statement of Ram Lakhan the vehicle after accident was not stopped and the driver of the vehicle after hitting the deceased, who was riding on cycle, had speeded up the vehicle and ran away, as such, it can easily be presumed that the vehicle which was said to be having the defect of break slip had hit the deceased and thereafter left the place of accident and reported at the U.P.S.R.T.C. Workshop. The time of reporting was manipulated in the records. 15. The statement of witness Ram Lakhan does not create any suspicion and it cannot be rejected simply because he was related to the deceased. 16. The learned Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the deceased Ram Autar had suffered injuries and died on the spot due to the accident involving vehicle UP-70H/9501. 17. So far as the interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is concerned, it is to be noted that the accident had taken place in the year 1998 and the award was made on 22.4.2002. The rate of interest i.e. 9% awarded by the Tribunal was just and proper as the said rate of interest was operative in the Banks at that time. It does not require any interference by this Court at this stage. 18. The appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed. 19. The statutory amount deposited at the time of filing of the appeal shall be remitted back to the Tribunal forthwith. 20. The appellant shall pay the awarded amount to the claimants within a period of six weeks from today after deduction of the amount paid, if any, to the claimants in this regard. ______________