ORDER 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 03.05.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - I, Jodhpur, whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,60,792/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application i.e. 30.08.2014. 2. The application for compensation was filed inter alia with the submissions that one - Kojaram was riding on a motorcycle on 30.05.2014, when the offending vehicle struck him from behind resulting in the deceased suffering grievous injuries, to which he ultimately succumbed. It is claimed that the deceased - Kojaram was aged 25 years, was a workman and used to earn Rs. 15,000/-per month, based on the said submissions, compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,09,58,000/- was claimed. The matter proceeded ex-parte against the driver and owners of the vehicle. 3. The appellant - Insurance Company filed its reply and contested the claim. 4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, Tribunal framed four issues. On behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined and eleven documents were exhibited. On behalf of the Insurance Company, one witness was examined and one document was exhibited. 5. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the driver of the vehicle and awarded compensation as noticed hereinbefore. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company made submissions that the Tribunal fell in error in deciding issue No.1 by holding that the accident occurred from the insured vehicle. It was indicated that the FIR was lodged against an unknown vehicle on the next day of the accident and one eye witness (AW-2) - Motaram was produced, based on whose statements, it was found by the Tribunal that the vehicle was involved. It is submitted that the deceased - Kojaram has suffered chrush injuries and looking to the nature of vehicle, it cannot be said that the accident occurred from the said vehicle. 7. Further submissions were made that Motaram in his statement had indicated that he has informed about the involvement of the vehicle to the family members, despite that the same was not indicated in the FIR, which clearly shows that the vehicle was not involved and on that count, the finding recorded in this regard deserves to be set aside. 7. Further submissions were made that Motaram in his statement had indicated that he has informed about the involvement of the vehicle to the family members, despite that the same was not indicated in the FIR, which clearly shows that the vehicle was not involved and on that count, the finding recorded in this regard deserves to be set aside. It was also submitted that Tribunal has awarded interest at excessive rate and, therefore, in case the Insurance Company is found liable, the interest be reduced appropriately. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions. It was submitted that it was not even the case of the appellant - Insurance Company that the vehicle was not involved. A look at the reply filed by the Insurance Company, in fact, indicates that the vehicle was involved, however, allegations have been made that the deceased - Kojaram was driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently and, therefore, the plea is not available to the appellant. 9. Further submissions have been made that Tribunal has awarded the interest, based on the fact that the accident had occurred in the year 2014 and, therefore, the said rate of interest also does not call for any interference. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. A bare look at the FIR (Ex.-2) indicates that brother of the deceased lodged FIR by indicating that the deceased - Kojaram was riding his motorcycle on the correct side, when an unknown vehicle which was being driven, rashly and negligently, struck his motorcycle from behind and that the tyre of the vehicle, ran over the head of his brother, to which injuries he succumbed. 12. After investigation and response to notice under Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Police filed challan in relation to the insured vehicle. During course of the present application, (AW-2) - Motaram was examined as eye witness by the claimants, who indicated that he was travelling on another motorcycle with one - Manohar Singh and going ahead of deceased - Kojaram, when he heard the sound of the accident and that the vehicle Bolero crossed him and he noted the numbers of the vehicle. He further indicated that he had informed the family members of the Kojaram the above facts and that Police had also come at the site. 13. On behalf of the Insurance Company, the officer who appeared, exhibited the Rojnamcha as Ex.1-A. 14. The Tribunal while deciding issue No.1, based on the material, which came on record, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred from the insured vehicle. 15. The submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant is essentially based on the fact that FIR was lodged against an unknown vehicle and, therefore, the insured vehicle has been wrongly involved. Merely, because FIR was lodged against an unknown vehicle, it cannot be held only on that count that the vehicle, which has been found involved is wrongly implicated. There is no further material produced by the appellant - Insurance Company to support the contention. It is another matter that insofar as the reply to the application is concerned, no such plea was raised, on the other hand, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents the plea taken is that the insured vehicle was not being driven rashly and negligently and the deceased - Kojaram was driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently, which is essentially an admission of the involvement of the vehicle. 16. In view of the above fact situation, insofar as the finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding the involvement of the vehicle is concerned, no case for interference is made out. 17. So far as the award of interest @ 9% per annum is concerned, looking to the fact that the accident took place in the year 2014, the award of interest @ 9%, which was then the prevalent rate, cannot be said to be excessive so as to require interference. 18. In view of above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed. 19. The record of the Tribunal be sent back immediately.