JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 6/5/2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salumbar District Udaipur ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,86,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 5/12/2013. 2. The application for compensation was filed by the claimants wife and children of deceased Shanker inter alia with the averments that on 28/5/2013 at about 8.30 p.m. Shanker along with his brother Heera Lal was going on road on foot when the offending Motorcycle being driven rashly and negligently by its driver struck Shanker from behind, resulting in grievous injuries to him, he was taken to Salumber and Udaipur for treatment, where after, on medical advise he was taken to his home where on 12/6/2013 he succumbed to the injuries and a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 crore was claimed. 3. The application for compensation was contested by owner and driver of the Motorcycle, wherein, averments made in the application were denied. 4. The Insurance Company filed its reply with the averments that the FIR was lodged after 15 days of the accident as an after thought, after colluding with the owner and driver of the insured vehicle. The accident occurred on account of negligence of the deceased Shanker, the income as claimed was disputed and it was submitted that exaggerated claim was made. 5. The Tribunal framed four issues, on behalf of the claimants two witnesses were examined and on behalf of Insurance Company three documents were produced. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred from the insured Motorcycle, the driver of the motorcycle was driving the same rashly and negligently, which resulted in the accident and injuries to Shanker Lal, to which he succumbed. The Insurance Company was held liable for making payment of compensation. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- p.m. as against claim of Rs. 25,000/- p.m. Based on the dependents of the deceased, was deducted towards personal expenses, the claim towards future prospects was denied, multiplier of 13 was adopted and towards loss of income Rs. 7,02,000/- was awarded, a sum of Rs. 1 lakh towards loss of consortium to wife and Rs. 1 lakh for loss of love and affection to children was awarded, Rs. 7,02,000/- was awarded, a sum of Rs. 1 lakh towards loss of consortium to wife and Rs. 1 lakh for loss of love and affection to children was awarded, Rs. 25,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs. 1,44,087/- was awarded towards medical expenses, another sum of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded towards transportation expenses and Rs. 10,000/- was awarded for loss of estate and in all a sum of Rs. 10,86,000/- was awarded. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that from the evidence available on record, it is apparent that the insured vehicle was not involved in the accident and the same has been involved in collusion with the owner and alleged driver of the Motorcycle, the FIR was lodged after 15 days of the accident, the material available on record does not prove that the accident occurred from the vehicle in question and merely because challan was filed against the driver of the Motorcycle, it cannot be presumed that the accident occurred from the said vehicle and, therefore, finding in this regard deserves to be set aside. 7. Further submissions were made that compensation awarded is excessive and, therefore, the award impugned deserves interference by this Court. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 9. The Tribunal after meticulously analyzing the oral and documentary evidence available on record and after meeting with all the objections which have been raised came to the conclusion that the accident occurred from the insured Motorcycle. Learned counsel for the appellant except for raising doubt based on the fact that FIR was lodged after 15 days could not point out any perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The mere fact that FIR was lodged after 15 days of the accident by itself cannot be a reason to doubt the veracity of the allegation regarding involvement of a particular vehicle. 10. Admittedly, the deceased was grievously hurt in the accident and moved from one hospital to another and ultimately on medical advise taken back home, where he breathed his last and immediately thereafter FIR was lodged. In these circumstances, the delay in lodging FIR stands satisfactorily explained, and the said reason by itself cannot be enough to negate the claim of the claimants. 11. In these circumstances, the delay in lodging FIR stands satisfactorily explained, and the said reason by itself cannot be enough to negate the claim of the claimants. 11. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased, who was 'Halwai' (confectioner) by profession, at Rs. 6,000/- per month, which income by itself cannot be said to be excessive looking to the fact that the deceased was supporting the family of 08 persons. Rest of the aspects pertaining to deduction towards personal expenses, multiplier adopted and award of amount towards loss of consortium and love & affection are based on settled law and in view thereof, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded is excessive so as to require interference by this Court in the present appeal. 12. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.