JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant ? Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 11.11.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanumangarh in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 309/2009, whereby, an amount of Rs. 7,38,000/- was awarded as compensation to the respondent/claimants on account of the death of Shri Tekchand in the accident which occurred on 14.06.2009. 2. The learned Tribunal, after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decided the claim petition of the claimant ? respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant ? Insurance Company vehemently argued that the findings of the Tribunal recorded on Issue No. 1 is erroneous. The vehicle insured with the appellant ? Insurance Company was falsely implicated in the present case just to get the compensation. He further submits that a bare perusal of the Site Plan (Exp. 3) prepared by the police during the course of investigation, shows that the Jeep was being driven by its driver on the correct side and there was no question that he was driving the jeep negligently and caused the accident. He submits that the place of accident is shown as mark ?X? is on the right side, where it is shown that there is a wire fencing around an agriculture field and the same was reported to be in the broken condition. He further submits that on a close scrutiny of Site Plan (Exp. 3) and Site Plan (Exp. 4) - suggests that Tekchand died on account of the motor-cycle having slipped and just to get the compensation, the present vehicle jeep was framed in this case. 4. Learned counsel further submits that even as per the statement of Heera Lal, who accompanied Tek Chand, did not specifically state that Tekchand died because of the collision with the offending jeep. He further submits that Shubhash, to whom deceased Tekchand and Heera Lal had gone to meet was not produced in the witness box. Therefore, the fact of accident was not proved by the cogent evidence and involvement of the insured jeep with the appellants was shown for the purpose of getting the compensation. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent submits that as per the Site Report (Exp. Therefore, the fact of accident was not proved by the cogent evidence and involvement of the insured jeep with the appellants was shown for the purpose of getting the compensation. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent submits that as per the Site Report (Exp. 3) it becomes clear that the deceased Tekchand @ Deepchand at the time of accident was standing with Heera Lal and the offending jeep first hit the motor-cycle, and then Tekchand who was standing nearby the motor-cycle. Tekchand sustained injuries in the accident and while taking to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries sustained. He further submits that in reply to the notice received by Daya Ram driver-owner of the jeep under Section 133 of the M.V. Act, he has stated that at the time of accident the jeep was being driven by him. The police after investigation also filed charge-sheet against the driver-owner of the jeep. He, therefore, submits that finding of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal on Issue No. 1, does not call for any interference, the same has rightly been decided in favour of the claimants after evaluating the evidence brought on record. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the judgment and award dated 11.11.2013 as well as other relevant record of the case. 7. A close reading of the site plan Exp. 3 shows that the accidental side is on the right side of the road and the jeep was being driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner in the wrong side. For the simple reason that there was no occasion for the jeep driver to have gone on the extreme right side of the road as the correct side for plying the vehicle i.e. jeep was on the left side of the road and if the collision had taken place at the place mark ?X? as shown in the site plan which was noted on the extreme right side of the road. The driver was negligent and the involvement of the jeep cannot be doubted in the facts and circumstances of the case as the police after investigation filed charge-sheet against the owner of the jeep and the fact of accident was also corroborated in the criminal proceedings. The driver was negligent and the involvement of the jeep cannot be doubted in the facts and circumstances of the case as the police after investigation filed charge-sheet against the owner of the jeep and the fact of accident was also corroborated in the criminal proceedings. Further in reply to the notice received under Section 133 of the M.V. Act, the owner of the jeep admitted the fact of involvement of the jeep in the accident. Besides this, the testimony of AW-2 Heera Lal fully corroborated the involvement of the jeep in the accident which occurred on 14.06.2009. 8. Thus, the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1, is just, proper and correct. The involvement of the jeep insured with the present appellants stands proved and the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the jeep was falsely implicated is noted to be rejected. 9. In view of the discussions made above, the appeal of appellant ? Insurance Company is bereft of merit, therefore, the same is dismissed. The interim order granted by this Court stands vacated and the Tribunal is directed to pay the amount awarded at the earliest convenience.