JUDGMENT B. Chandra Kumar, J. 1. Since the MACMA and the Cross Objections arise out of the award dated 02.12.2005 passed in MVOP No. 650 of 2003 by the III Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Warangal, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. MACMA No. 1245 of 2006 is filed by the Oriental insurance Company Limited against the said award whereas the Cross Objections (SR) No. 27068 of 2006 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 4. The first claimant is the wife, the second claimant is the minor son and the third claimant is the mother of the deceased. Their case is that on 25.04.2003 the deceased went to see his newly born son at Chinapendyal village. From that village he was returning on his Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing No. AP-36-1238. When he reached Madikonda at about 10.00 PM it is alleged that the Jeep bearing No. ABJ 0008 (Green colour) being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came in opposite direction and dashed against the Bajaj Chetak Scooter. As a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries. The driver of the jeep without stopping the jeep at the place of accident fled away with the jeep. PW.2 N. Malla Reddy who is the cousin of the deceased and who was also returning on another scooter behind the deceased has witnessed the accident. He shifted the deceased to Jaya Hospitals, Hanamkonda, however the deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was working as Conductor in APSRTC and earning Rs. 4466/- per month. They claimed compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/-. 5. The first respondent-owner of the jeep filed counter mainly contending that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased and there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 6. The second respondent-Insurance Company filed a counter, which was adopted by the third respondent. They contended that there is inordinate delay in lodging report to the police and that the jeep is not involved in the accident and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 7. The Tribunal framed necessary issues. 8. 6. The second respondent-Insurance Company filed a counter, which was adopted by the third respondent. They contended that there is inordinate delay in lodging report to the police and that the jeep is not involved in the accident and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 7. The Tribunal framed necessary issues. 8. On behalf of the claimants the first claimant is examined as PW.1 and PWs.2 and 3 were examined and Exs. A1 to A16 were marked. On behalf of the respondents RW.1 was examined and Exs. B1 to B33 were marked. Exs. X1 and X2 were also marked by Court. 9. On the issue of negligence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep. On issue No. 2, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,70,524/- towards compensation. 10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the claimants have failed to prove the involvement of the jeep and therefore the claimants are not entitled for compensation. It is also his submission that the report was given to the police after 21 days of the accident and the police made false investigation and laid charge sheet against the jeep driver and that the Tribunal has not considered this fact. It is also his submission that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable amount and there is no need to enhance the compensation amount. 11. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that in the FIR itself the colour of the jeep has been mentioned as cream colour. Though jeep number is not mentioned but the police seized the jeep and noticed damages to the jeep and finally filed charge sheet against the driver of the jeep. Thus, his submission is that the finding of the Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of evidence with regard to negligence. It is also his submission that the claimants are entitled for higher amount. 12. It is not in dispute that the deceased was proceeding on his Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing No. AP-36-1238 and the accident occurred while he was returning from Medikonda. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was shifted to Jaya Hospitals, Hanamkonda soon after the accident. PW.2 claims that he had witnessed the accident. Admittedly, he did not give the jeep number in his complaint to the police. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was shifted to Jaya Hospitals, Hanamkonda soon after the accident. PW.2 claims that he had witnessed the accident. Admittedly, he did not give the jeep number in his complaint to the police. However, he has described the colour of the jeep in the FIR. As seen from the record, the wife of the deceased lodged a complaint alleging that some unknown vehicle dashed against the scooter of her husband. She did not mention the number of the vehicle. Admittedly, she was not an eye witness to the incident. Upon receiving the report from the wife of the deceased the police have investigated the case. They recorded the statement of PW.2 who shifted the deceased to the hospital. PW.2 is the eye witness to the occurrence, of course he was the brother-in-law of the deceased. It appears he was eager to save the life of the deceased and he had rather preferred to shift the injured to hospital rather to give report to the police. His conduct is natural, because the need of the hour was to take immediate steps to the life. Moreover, when he was examined by the police he has described the colour of the vehicle in his statement, but he could not give the vehicle number. If at all PWs.1 and 2 wanted to implicate any vehicle they would have given number of any vehicle which is insured. The statement of the wife of the deceased that some unknown vehicle dashed the motor cycle and the statement of PW.2 that cream colour vehicle dashed against the motor cycle appears to be honest statements. Basing upon those statements, the police investigated the case. They recorded the statements of PWs.1 and 2. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer on the basis of some clues found the vehicle and seized the same. When the vehicle was seized it was noticed that the front portion of the vehicle was found damaged which confirmed that the same vehicle dashed the scooter. Even blood stains were found on the front wheel of the jeep. The driver of the jeep was arrested. The driver of the jeep seems to have admitted his guilt before the criminal Court. These are the circumstances which proved the involvement of the vehicle. Even blood stains were found on the front wheel of the jeep. The driver of the jeep was arrested. The driver of the jeep seems to have admitted his guilt before the criminal Court. These are the circumstances which proved the involvement of the vehicle. These circumstances were neither disputed by the driver of the vehicle nor by the Insurance Company at the initial stage. For the first time before this Court, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company now challenges the involvement of the vehicle which has no legs to stand. 13. Moreover the Insurance Company has appointed an Investigator. The Investigator has verified the records, examined the witnesses, visited the scene of offence and then filed his report showing the involvement of the vehicle. However, the Insurance Company, having received the report, has not filed the said report before the Tribunal and suppressed the said fact before the Tribunal. RW.1 who was working as Administrative Officer in the insurance Company during his cross-examination admitted that the report of the Investigator Ramakoteswara Rao shows the involvement of the vehicle BJ 0008 in the accident. It is most unfortunate that the Insurance Company did not file the said report before the Court. Where the investigation done by the Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company itself shows the involvement of the vehicle it was obligatory on the part of the Insurance Company to file such report before the Court. The officials of the Insurance Company being responsible officers they are answerable to the Court and they ought not to have suppressed the report. The Insurance Company was expected to place all the facts before the Court. The evidence of PW.2 clearly shows that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the jeep. It is the duty of the Tribunals and Courts to examine the entire evidence and draw logical conclusions. Entire evidence on record has to be properly appreciated. 14. In view of the above discussion, I hold that it is proved that the vehicle involved in the accident is the same vehicle, which is insured with the Insurance Company. 15. Coming to the aspect of compensation, as far as income of the deceased is concerned, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that since the deceased was working only as casual conductor his gross salary should not be taken into consideration. 15. Coming to the aspect of compensation, as far as income of the deceased is concerned, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that since the deceased was working only as casual conductor his gross salary should not be taken into consideration. In fact, though the deceased was working as casual conductor there was every possibility of regularizing his services in future and in view of the same I do not see any reason to accept the contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company. Since the deceased was below 40 years of age, 50% has to be added as addition to the income of the deceased in view of the recent judgment of the Apex Court. 16. The deceased was working as a Conductor and drawing gross salary of Rs. 4466/- and net salary of Rs. 4008/-. He was aged about 35 years. Where in a case the deceased is below 40 years, there should be an addition of 50% to the annual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Thus, the income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs. 6600/- per month and if 1/3rd is deducted towards his personal expenses, the loss of earnings would come to Rs. 4400/- per month and Rs. 52,800/- per annum. If the same is multiplied with 16 the total loss of earnings would come to Rs. 8,44,800/-. The wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, the minor children would be entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance. The claimants are also entitled to Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the total compensation would come to Rs. 11,69,800/-. 17. It is settled law that irrespective of the claim made by the claimants, the Tribunal and Courts have to award compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable, but the claimants have to pay deficit court fee. 18. Accordingly, the MACMA filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the Cross Objections filed by the claimants is allowed granting compensation of Rs. 11,69,800/-. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till realization. Out of the said amount, the wife of the deceased shall take Rs. 4,50,000/-, the second claimant shall take Rs. 5,00,000/- and the third claimant shall take Rs. 2,19,800/-. 11,69,800/-. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till realization. Out of the said amount, the wife of the deceased shall take Rs. 4,50,000/-, the second claimant shall take Rs. 5,00,000/- and the third claimant shall take Rs. 2,19,800/-. However, the claimants are directed to pay deficit court fee before drafting the decree. No costs. 19. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. Appeal dismissed