ORDER : Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This first appeal from order has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 29.2.2016 passed in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge (Court No. 7) Muzaffar Nagar in M.A.C.P. No. 308 of 2014-Smt. Kamlawati and others Versus Narbir Singh and another whereby the concerned tribunal awarded compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 4,34,000/- carrying on 7% interest to the claimant respondents under various heads. 3. The facts relevant for adjudication of this appeal discernible from the record appear to be that in this case allegations are that some accident took place on 30.12.2013 at 7.30 p.m. on distillery crossing by the side of G.T. Road in district Muzaffarnagar when a motorcycle Splendor Plus No. U.P. 15-A.B. 3978 on which two persons were riding was about to stop then it was hit by some bus coming from Muzaffar Nagar side due to which the motor cycle went out of control and it collided with Virendra Kumar, who was standing by the side of the road due to which Virendra Kumar sustained several injuries on his person, he was taken to Muzaffar Nagar medical college where he was hospitalized on 30.12.2013 around 9 a.m. where he succumbed to his injuries on 31.12.2013 at 7.40 a.m. Post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted. 4. In view of the aforesaid accidental death, claim was preferred by the present claimant-respondents before the aforesaid claim tribunal wherein the insurer of the aforesaid offending motorcycle U.P. 15-A.B. 3978 was also impleaded as opposite party no. 2 along-with owner of the vehicle as opposite party no. 1. The case was contested between the parties and written statement was filed whereupon the tribunal framed as many as five issues. 5. Issue no. 2 along-with owner of the vehicle as opposite party no. 1. The case was contested between the parties and written statement was filed whereupon the tribunal framed as many as five issues. 5. Issue no. 1 related to fact whether the accident in question was caused on 30.12.2013 at 7.30 a.m. and at that point of time aforesaid Virendra Kumar along-with Sudheer was standing hundred meters away from the distillery crossing at G.T. Road within police station Mansurpur, waiting for his son when a bus coming from Muzaffar Nagar side collided with one motorcycle No. U.P. 15-A.B. 3978 on which two persons were riding, when the motorcycle was about to stop and at that point of time the bus hit it due to which the motorcycle went out of control resultantly collided with Virendra Kumar due to which Virendra Kumar sustained injuries and died during the course of treatment. If yes, its effect? 6. Issue no. 2 related to the fact whether the road accident was caused by the driver of the motorcycle No. U.P. 15-A.B. 3978 and the accident was the outcome of contributory negligence of the deceased Virendra Kumar, if yes its effect? 7. Issue no. 3 related to the fact whether on the aforesaid date and time the driver of the aforesaid motorcycle No. U.P. 15-A.B. 3978 was possessing a valid and effective driving licence? 8. Issue no. 4 related to the fact whether the aforesaid vehicle was insured with the present appellant on the date and time of the accident and the same was being given in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? 9. Issue no. 5 related to the fact of quantum of compensation, as to what compensation and from whom and to what proportion the claimants are entitled to receive? 10. Both the sides filed their papers, which have been taken on record and described in the body of the award of the tribunal, the same need not be repeated for the sake of convenience. However, in case as and when the context arises, the same will be referred. 11. The claimant got examined three witnesses P.W. 1 Kamlawati, P.W. 2 Jai Prakash and P.W. 3 Sudhir and the opposite party/owner got examined D.W. 1 Pawan Kumar. However, in case as and when the context arises, the same will be referred. 11. The claimant got examined three witnesses P.W. 1 Kamlawati, P.W. 2 Jai Prakash and P.W. 3 Sudhir and the opposite party/owner got examined D.W. 1 Pawan Kumar. The tribunal after considering the merit of the case and after hearing the arguments allowed the claim petition to the aforesaid extent, consequently, this appeal. 12. Sri Sushil Kumar Mehrotra, learned counsel for the National Insurance Company Ltd. has vehemently contended that it is a case of blind accident, in fact, no one saw the accident having been caused by the involvement of the motorcycle in question. The story of accident was cooked up by the claimant in order to obtain compensation from a vehicle which was insured with some company and in their bid they somehow involved the present motorcycle, which was insured with the appellant company. 13. The learned counsel added that the entirety of the case, the evidence on record and the allegations if properly scrutinized give impression that it is purely a case of hit and run thus confined to the provisions of section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the compensation amount to the tune of over Rs. 4 lakhs is not justified and the amount which is admissible and permissible for cases confined to 'hit and run' alone should have been awarded, which the insurance company is ready, if so directed, though there is no responsibility on the insurance company because it was the unknown offending vehicle/bus which caused the accident. The investigation was done and final report was submitted. This aspect exposes the claim of the claimant-respondent. The testimony of P.W. 3 Sudhir does not inspire confidence. Further, the eye witness account of P.W. 3 Sudhir should have been interpreted and appreciated with utmost caution in view of the prevailing facts and circumstances of the case and the sanctity which is normally attached to the testimony of witnesses in the cases like the present one should not be presumed to be so and presumption of truthfulness of the testimony was erroneously taken to be the guiding factor while determining the point of the accident. The learned counsel concluded by claiming that assuming it to be that any such accident took place and it really hit the motor cycle as claimed then the things are obvious and the principal of 'Res ipsa loquitur' 'the thing cannot tell a lie, the person can' will apply. The very manner of committing the accident presupposes negligence of the bus driver itself and that is super added by the negligence of the motorcyclist. Someone claims that it was about to stop then the precautionary brakes as was expected to be applied to the motorcycle was not applied properly and in case it was parked, then it was not properly parked and the accident took place because of wrong parking. Viewing from any angle, the only outcome would be reflection of negligence of both the drivers of the offending vehicles involved in the accident then in this situation proportional damage should have been fixed on each of the two involved vehicles, which has not been done properly by the tribunal and the insurance company of the motorcycle cannot be solely made responsible to pay the compensation amount, as such. It is not a case of joint tortfeasors but there are separate and different tortfeasors for which the responsibility of each tortfeasor is to be assessed on the basis of the respective claim. The deceased himself did not take precaution and exposed himself to the risk by standing nearer to the road, that way he also contributed towards the accident. 14. While replying to the aforesaid argument learned counsel for the claimant-respondent vehemently claimed that the case of the claimant-respondent has been proved satisfactorily beyond all doubt by production of eye witness account as P.W. 3. P.W. 3 was cross examined extensively by the insurance company but nothing adverse emerged which may lead to accept the aforesaid contention raised by the insurance company that the accident was the outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the bus driver and no such accident ever took place and the driver of the insured vehicle was negligent and the deceased himself was negligent. On all these points there is no material emerging from the cross examination of P.W. 3 which can be considered to be favourable to the insurance company. On all these points there is no material emerging from the cross examination of P.W. 3 which can be considered to be favourable to the insurance company. May be that the circumstances are not consistent and there is some inherent improbability but that improbability cannot be stretched to a situation claiming that the deceased died in different manner rather than the one claimed by the claimant respondents. Had there been no accident, and had there been no situation as claimed by the claimant-respondents then the insurance company would have been competent enough and would have come out specifically with the testimony disclaiming the incident in question. Merely filing of the final report by police, would not be suffice to throw away the claim of the claimant-respondents. In such cases of motor accident lodging of FIR and other police formalities are not necessary. The sanctity of the witnesses is given highest place and the witness produced by the claimant respondent side out and out proved the factum of the incident and the tribunal has rightly observed that the deceased did not contribute to the incident and the driver of the offending motor cycle also did not contribute to the accident. 15. Learned counsel for the claimant-respondents, however claimed that the amount of compensation awarded was reduced by the tribunal which is not justified. However, it should be just and proper as claimed by the claimant-respondent. 16. I have considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel and also perused the record and particularly the award in question. Learned counsel for the insurance company has also engaged the attention of this Court to the testimony of D.W. 1, and has claimed that this testimony of the driver of the motorcycle in question is relevant for defining the correct position. The correct position is that the motorcycle had been parked and on that point of time when the alleged incident took place, the driver of the motorcycle had in the meanwhile gone for toilet, therefore, the claim that the motorcycle was about to stop or it was parked stands refuted. On this point learned counsel for the claimant respondent engaged attention of this Court to the testimony of P.W. 3. On this point learned counsel for the claimant respondent engaged attention of this Court to the testimony of P.W. 3. Testimony of P.W. 3 is reflectory of fact that the incident in question was primarily originated by the bus, which was unknown, however, it hit the motorcycle from behind which in consequence dashed with the deceased Virendra Kumar, due to which he sustained injuries and died during course of treatment. On this point the cross examination done has not come out with any perceptible flaw or error to be construed in favour of the appellant that the testimony is not truthful on the point of accident. In view of the consistent testimony of P.W. 3 obviously, it cannot be said that the deceased ever contributed towards the accident. Further, it is a claim petition under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act wherein the point of negligence need not be specifically established to the ambit claimed by the insurance company. Therefore, the finding in so far as on issue no. 1 is concerned as recorded by the tribunal is on the face just and consistent and the same need no interference by this Court. 17. In so far as the entire quantum of compensation is concerned, then the tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation and has under various heads assessed the monthly income to Rs. 3,000/- which amount was reduced by 1/3 margin while assessing the annual income, thus, annual income was calculated to Rs. 24,000/- and after adding 30% as future prospect say Rs. 7,200/- in the annual income, it was assessed to Rs. 31,200/-. 18. Thereafter, applying the multiplier of 15 the compensation amount was assessed to Rs. 4,14,000/- then Rs. 5,000/- was awarded for loss of estate, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses and under head of loss of company of the husband Rs. 5000/- was awarded, thus aggregating to Rs. 4,34,000/-. This amount along-with 7% interest was awarded as over all compensation and under circumstances in cannot be said to be either unreasonable or excessive and the finding recorded by the tribunal on all the issues are liable to be confirmed. Consequently, the appeal being without any force is liable to be dismissed and the judgment and award dated 29.2.2016 passed in M.A.C.P. No. 308 of 2014 is hereby confirmed. 19. Consequently, the appeal being without any force is liable to be dismissed and the judgment and award dated 29.2.2016 passed in M.A.C.P. No. 308 of 2014 is hereby confirmed. 19. The entire amount of compensation shall be paid to the claimant respondent in the proportion as directed by the tribunal. At this stage, money deposited by the insurance company at the time of presentation of this appeal i.e. Rs. 25,000/- shall be remitted to the trial court if it has not been done so far and the insurance company is directed to deposit the remaining entire amount outstanding with the tribunal concerned within a period of 30 days from today by adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited and paid. 20. However, the learned counsel for the insurance company claimed that for completing official formalities, some more time is needed for ensuring the compliance for which he prays for two and half months period at least. The plea is sustained. 21. The amount of compensation may be deposited in two and half months from today. 22. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. 23. Costs easy.