ORDER 1. This appeal by the insurance company against the award dated 5.10.2018 passed in Claim Case No. 100965/2015 by II Additional MACT, Khargone is directed on two counts : (i) the FIR was lodged against unknown vehicle and the alleged offending vehicle bearing registration No. MP-09-FA-9801 was seized after eleven days; (ii) even otherwise, future prospects could have not been awarded. 2. Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of this appeal in nutshell are to the effect that due to rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid offending vehicle, deceased Santosh while crossing the road was dashed and died on the fateful day i.e. on 3.6.2016. The tribunal has found proved factum of accident and involvement of the offending vehicle. Accordingly awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,72,600/- together with the interest at the rate of seven percent per annum. 3. Upon perusal the impugned award and the evidence on record and the submission advanced, it is found that in the next two days of occurrence of accident, witnesses were examined and upon detailed investigation, the offending vehicle was seized after eleven days. The driver and the owner of the vehicle were arrested and challan was filed. The claimants had proved the factum of accident by examining two eye-witnesses by submission of documentary evidence based on FIR, statement recorded under section 161 of CrPC and challan before the Court. 4. The Insurance company has only led the evidence of private investigator. There is no evidence belying the claim of factum of the incident and involvement of the offending vehicle. 5. Under such circumstances, the tribunal is found to have rightly concluded involvement of the vehicle and accordingly awarded just and proper compensation as well discussed in paras 8 and 11 of the impugned award. 6. This Court finds no substance as regards second contention related to award of future prospects. In the case of Pranay Sethi and ors. v. National Insurance Company Limited, reported on 2018 (1) JLJ 200 = 2017 ACJ 2700 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the facts and circumstances entitling claimants for 'future prospects'. The case of the claimants squarely falls within the four corners of said judgment. Hence, the second contention is also rejected. 7. Consequently, misc. appeal sans merit and hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.