JUDGMENT 1. The present appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 02.08.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pratapgarh in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 53/2018 whereby, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 13,58,320/- in favour of respondents-claimants on account of the death of Deepak in the accident which occurred on 01.01.2018. 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 respondents-claimants. 3. The appeal preferred by the appellant - Insurance Company is on the ground that the Tribunal committed an error while recording the finding of fact on Issue No. 1 and 2 against the Insurance Company. 4. Heard. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company submits that the vehicle insured with the Insurance Company was not at all involved in the accident. Learned counsel vehemently argued that from the statement of AW-2 Rahul, it has come on record that at the time of the accident, vehicle pickup was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Bharat Lal and the registration number of the pickup was informed to the police. But these facts are conspicuously missing in the F.I.R. He further submits that in the F.I.R. the number of the pickup was not mentioned and the vehicle was produced before police by its owner after a period of 29 days and thus, it shows that there was a collusion between the claimants and the owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel further submits that seeing the inconsistency in the statements of AW-1, AW-2 and the F.I.R., it can safely be inferred that the vehicle insured with the appellant was falsely implicated in the present case just for the purpose of getting the compensation. He further submits that even in the Rojanamacha Report neither the registration number of the vehicle insured with appellant - Insurance Company was mentioned nor the manner in which the accident took place was mentioned. 6. Learned counsel implored this Court to the site plan prepared by the police and tried to impress upon the manner in which narration of the accident was mentioned which clearly shows that the same is not corroborating with the statements of AW-2. 6. Learned counsel implored this Court to the site plan prepared by the police and tried to impress upon the manner in which narration of the accident was mentioned which clearly shows that the same is not corroborating with the statements of AW-2. He further submits that the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. cannot be partially read in favour of the claimants-respondents but the same are required to be read in totality. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Insurance Company relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Premlata Shukla reported in 2007 (13) SCC 746. 7. Learned counsel thus, submits that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding the compensation against the present appellant - Insurance Company and the same therefore, is required to be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submits that the finding of the Tribunal on Issue Nos. 1 and 3, is just and proper and no infirmity was committed. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence brought on record rightly concluded that the vehicle insured with the Insurance Company was the only vehicle with which the accident occurred and there was no question of the same having been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that there was no contradiction in the statements of AW-2 viz-a-viz the F.I.R. Learned counsel further submits that the F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia and only the factum of accident was mentioned in the F.I.R. and the same cannot be denied. He further submits that in reply to the notice received by the owner under Section 133 of the M.V. Act, it was submitted by him that his driver Bharat Lal was driving the vehicle at the time of accident which occurred on 01.01.2018. He further submits that even the M.T.O. report placed on record as Exp-16 shows that the right side of the bonnet was bumped and broken. He further submits that a charge-sheet against the driver was filed by the investigating agency. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, including the relevant papers and the investigation conducted by the police, proves beyond doubt that the vehicle insured with the appellant was the only vehicle involved in the present accident. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, including the relevant papers and the investigation conducted by the police, proves beyond doubt that the vehicle insured with the appellant was the only vehicle involved in the present accident. Thus, the appellant - Insurance Company cannot be absolved from the liability of the compensation in the present case. 9. As far as the appeal preferred by the respondents-claimants is concerned, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal assessed the compensation on the lower side. However, he is unable to point out any infirmity in particular towards the assessment of the compensation awarded. 10. Learned counsel for Insurance Company while opposing the appeal of the claimants submits that the Tribunal while calculating the award has taken into consideration the relevant factors in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the same does not suffer from any infirmity. 11. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar. 12. As far as, the finding on Issue Nos. 1 and 2 is concerned, the contention of the counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company that the vehicle insured with the appellant - Insurance Company was not involved, is liable to be rejected on the ground that as per the site plan prepared by the police during the course of investigation, the manner in which the accident occurred was shown and the same also stands corroborated from the statement of AW-2 Rahul, who was present in the car at the time of accident. 13. This Court is of the opinion that minor infractions in the statement of AW-2 Rahul will not discard the entire chain of events showing that the vehicle insured with the appellant was the only vehicle which was involved in the accident in the present case. Merely because, the registration number of the offending vehicle stated in the statement but the same was not reflecting in the F.I.R. will not conclusive proof to disbelieve the statement of AW-2 Rahul. The complete chain of events show that the vehicle at the time of accident was being driven by its driver Bharat Lal and the fact that the vehicle was involved in the accident can be seen from the reply filed by the owner of the vehicle in reply to the notice received under Section 133 of M.V. Act. The complete chain of events show that the vehicle at the time of accident was being driven by its driver Bharat Lal and the fact that the vehicle was involved in the accident can be seen from the reply filed by the owner of the vehicle in reply to the notice received under Section 133 of M.V. Act. Further, the report of the M.T.O. also shows that there were bumps and scratches on the pickup vehicle which was insured with the appellant - Insurance Company showing that the accident had occurred. It is true that the exact manner in which the accident occurred has not come on record whether it was a head on collision or a side collision but, from the material placed on record it is certain that an accident had occurred with the vehicle which was insured with the present appellant and the involvement of the same was proved beyond doubt. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal on Issue Nos. 1 and 3 is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 14. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company that the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. cannot be partly accepted and partly discarded, is not applicable as the facts in the present case speaks in volumes about the involvement of the vehicle insured with the appellant -Insurance Company in view of the ample evidence brought on record. 15. Thus, the appeal of the appellant - Insurance Company, in view of the discussions made above is bereft of merit, therefore, the same is dismissed. 16. The appeal preferred by the respondents-claimants also does not warrant any interference as the learned counsel has not been able to show any infirmity with the computation of the award and the factors applied therein for arriving at ?Just Compensation' in the present case. The amount awarded by the Tribunal in the opinion of this Court is ?Just Compensation' and the same is in conformity with the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. The same is, therefore, also dismissed. 17. The findings recorded by the Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 02.08.2019 are upheld. 18. Record may be sent back forthwith to the Tribunal for disbursement of the amount of award to the claimants-respondents.