JUDGMENT : ARUN BHANSALI, J. These appeals are directed against the judgment and awards dated 27/1/2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sojat District Pali (‘the Tribunal’), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 9,96,326/- and Rs. 6,03,808/- as compensation to claimants Mukesh Kumar and Jaswant, respectively along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of application i.e 1/5/2014 for the injuries suffered by them. 2. The applications for compensation were filed by the claimants inter alia with the averments that on 26/11/2013 at about 6.30 p.m they were riding on a Motor Cycle No. RJ-22-SF-3926 and the Motor Cycle was being driven on the correct side of the road when the delivery vehicle Van No. RJ-22-GA-4905 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver came on the wrong side of the road and struck the Motor Cycle, resulting in claimants suffering grievous injuries. For the injuries suffered, the claimants claimed various sums. 3. The applications were contested by the driver and owner of the Van. It was submitted that the medical expenses allegedly incurred were imaginary; the Motor Cycle was being driven by Mukesh Kumar and the accident occurred on account of his own negligence. It was prayed that the applications be rejected. 4. The Insurance Company filed its reply and contested the averments contained in the applications. It was submitted that the accident occurred on account of negligence of driver of the Motor Cycle and, therefore, the presence of owner of the Motor Cycle as well as its Insurance Company was necessary. 5. Based on the submissions of the parties, the Tribunal framed four issues. On behalf of the claimants three witnesses were examined and 354 documents were exhibited. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the delivery Van. The issue pertaining to negligence of driver of the Motor Cycle was negated and the Tribunal assessed the compensation on account of permanent disablement suffered by both the claimants, as noticed hereinbefore. 6. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the delivery Van. The issue pertaining to negligence of driver of the Motor Cycle was negated and the Tribunal assessed the compensation on account of permanent disablement suffered by both the claimants, as noticed hereinbefore. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company that from the material on record it is established that the accident didn't occur from the insured vehicle; the FIR was lodged after substantive delay inasmuch as the accident had occurred on 26/11/2013, whereas, the FIR was lodged on 10/12/2013, the explanation given in this regard was flimsy and cannot be accepted. It was also submitted that the FIR was lodged by one Bhagwan Ram, who did not appear in the witness box and that there are material contradictions in the statements of both the claimants and on this count the finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding the involvement of insured vehicle deserves to be quashed and set aside and consequently awards also deserve to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents on caveat supported the awards impugned. It was submitted that merely because the FIR was delayed cannot be a solitary ground for disbelieving the involvement of insured vehicle. Submissions were made that the Tribunal thoroughly considered the evidence available on record and has met with the objections raised by the appellant and has arrived at the conclusion that the insured vehicle was involved in the accident and the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the insured vehicle and as such the awards do not call for interference. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. A perusal of the reply filed by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal would reveal that the appellant Insurance Company raised objections based on the delayed FIR, and in the additional plea alleged that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the Motor Cycle and not the insured vehicle. 9. A perusal of the reply filed by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal would reveal that the appellant Insurance Company raised objections based on the delayed FIR, and in the additional plea alleged that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the Motor Cycle and not the insured vehicle. The Tribunal after thoroughly and critically considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the insured vehicle was involved in the accident and that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the insured vehicle. Qua the plea raised by the appellant pertaining to delay in lodging the FIR, the explanation given by the claimants was accepted. 10. The counsel for the appellant emphasized that there are contradictions in the statements of both the claimants i.e Mukesh Kumar and Jaswant and relied on the written submissions filed before the Tribunal. Having perused the written submissions, it cannot be said that the written submissions indicate any contradiction in the statements of claimants, only doubts have been raised in the said written submissions, which are not sufficient to discard the oral and documentary evidence, which has otherwise come on record. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any perversity and/or material contradictions in the statements of claimants so as to come to a conclusion different from what has been arrived at by the Tribunal. 12. In view thereof, the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the aspect of involvement of insured vehicle and negligence of its driver does not call for any interference. 13. No other point was pressed by counsel for the appellant. 14. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeals, the same are, therefore, dismissed.