JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants claiming the following reliefs: "Therefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed against the appellants may kindly be set aside and the claim petition filed by the respondents may be dismissed with costs." 2. The unfortunate accident had happened on 22.05.1996 at about 1:00 pm, when deceased Uka Ram tried to gesture the tractor driver Sanwala Ram to stop for him, and at that time, appellant Gheesu Khan, while riding scooter bearing registration No. RJ16 M 2591 came and hit Uka Ram, which resulted into the injuries and death of Uka Ram. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the award on the ground that there is a discrepancy in the statements of eyewitness namely Hoja Ram NAW-1 and Sanwala Ram AD-2. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn attention of this Court to the statement rendered by Sanwala Ram as AD-2, in which he has stood by the narration of the accident as stated in the FIR, to the effect that the scooter being ridden by Gheesu Khan caused the accident, resulting into the death of Uka Ram. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has taken this Court to the evidence rendered by NAW-1 Hoja Ram and has tried to impress upon this Court that the evidence rendered by Hoja Ram clearly speaks of negligence on the part of the tractor driver Sanwal Ji, as deceased Uka Ram fell down, while trying to climb the trolley of the tractor. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has also drawn attention of this Court towards the FIR and has submitted that Sanwala Ram instead of stopping and helping deceased Uka Ram has straightway gone to the Police Station and immediately lodged the FIR. Learned counsel for the appellants has further drawn attention of this Court towards the discrepancy in the statement rendered by Badami as AD-1, as she has submitted that Sanwala Ram had come to her after lodging the FIR whereas in his statement, Sanwala Ram has stated in his cross examination that he met with the wife of Uka Ram after 15 days of the incident. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the onus of proving the vehicle to have been driven by Ghisu Khan with the consent of the owner Babu Khan is not made out. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that it was a duty of the insurance company, to have established the fact that Gheesu Khan was not having the valid driving license, whereas no such proof has been led by the insurance company. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents Insurance Company opposed the submissions. 10. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the statements of the witnesses, finds that the evidence rendered by Sanwala Ram as an eyewitness is credible, as the narration made by him in the immediate FIR matches with his statement made before the learned Tribunal. The immediate FIR has the same narration, which has led to the compensation having been awarded with liability upon the appellants. The learned Tribunal has recorded, while deciding the issue No.4, that the appellant driver was prosecuted for not having the license under the Motor Vehicles Act and was convicted for the same. The learned Tribunal has also recorded that in the appeal so preferred against such conviction for not having a valid driving license in violation of Section 3/181, the conviction of the driver Gheesu Khan ha been upheld. 11. On a careful perusal of the record, this Court also finds that Gheesu Khan was the son of owner Babu Khan, and therefore, the vehicle was being driven with the consent of owner of the vehicle i.e. Scooter in question. It is further noted that the factum of upholding of owner Babu Khan's conviction has also been recorded by the learned Tribunal while deriving conclusion on issue No.4. 12. Thus, on an overall consideration, this Court does not find any reason to make interference in the impugned judgment dated 04.04.2000. However, the interest @ 12% per annum awarded by the learned Tribunal is reduced to 9% per annum. 13. Accordingly, the present misc. appeal is dismissed in the above terms. All pending applications stand disposed of.