JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Having heard the rival contentions put forth by learned Counsels for the appellant and the claimant/respondent no. 1, it appears that the accident occurred on 24.6.2007 at the outskirts of Haldwani town when a Mahindra Pickup bearing no. UA04D-4119, being driven by Ateek Ahmad (respondent no. 3), dashed the motorcycle having registration no. UA04D-1802. This accident and the insurance cover of the Mahindra Pickup have not been disputed. It is also an admitted fact that Mr. Bhairav Datt Suyal was driving the said motorcycle and Anand Prakash Budhani was the pillion rider and both the youths suffered injuries in this accident and ultimately they succumbed and thus lost their lives. 2. Three separate claim petitions were filed by the respective legal heirs. What happened to other two petitions is not known to this Court. The present petition was filed by the mother of deceased Bhairav Datt Suyal. It was decreed for compensation of Rs. 3,67,000/-. The same has been challenged by way of this appeal. 3. Learned Counsel of the appellant insurance company pointed out that at the end of the trial, the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal came to know that an FIR bearing Crime No. 369/2007, under Section 279, 337, 338, 427, 304A IPC was lodged in connection with this accident by one Mr. Mohan Chand Budhani against the driver Ateek Ahmad. Complainant is brother of one of the deceased Anand Prakash Budhani. So, the Presiding Officer summoned Mr. Mohan Chand Budhani. He was examined on oath. He lodged the report after coming to know about the accident by one Mr. Mohan Chand Chhimwal. So, the complainant was not an eyewitness. 4. Investigation Officer found that there were three youths, who were riding the motorcycle at the time of accident and Mr. Mohan Chand Chhimwal was one of them, besides the two deceased persons named above. But in order to avert the possibility of getting lesser quantum of compensation, it was shown that only aforenamed two were riding the bike and after causing the accident, Mahindra Pickup hit the third person Mohan Chand Chhimwal, who was standing on the road. However, the fact is that he was also travelling on the said bike as a pillion rider. 5. However, the fact is that he was also travelling on the said bike as a pillion rider. 5. The above fact is verified by the deposition of Ateek Ahmad, the driver of Mahindra Pickup, and also from the chargesheet filed for the said offence. Otherwise also, the driver Mr. Ateek Ahmad is the best witness to reveal the truth because interest of Mohan Chand Budhani and Mohan Chand Chhimwal is not different in nature, while deposition of Ateek Ahmad is independent one for the reason that the liability, in any case, was not going to be fastened on him or his mater. So, I hereby discard the statement of Mohan Chand Chhimwal or any other witness in comparison to the driver Ateek Ahmad, and if such factor is considered a little, then it is difficult to deny that some responsibility should have been shared for the negligence of Bhairav Datt Suyal and the two pillion riders because a motorbike cannot be used for travelling of three persons at a time. 6. Accordingly, I feel it expedient to cut one-third in the total amount of compensation. Thus, the award is reduced from Rs. 3,67,000/- to Rs. 2,44,667/-. Interest part is not disturbed. 7. Consequently, this appeal is hereby allowed. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. Insurance company shall forthwith deposit the remaining amount, if any, before the Tribunal. Registry is directed to remit the amount of compulsory deposit, along with the interest it has earned, to Court below. Thereafter Tribunal shall release the entire amount, adjusting the amount already disbursed earlier, in favour of the claimant. 8. Let the lower court record be sent back.