JUDGMENT anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 (for short 'the act of 1988') against the judgment and award dated 30.09.2011 passed by the Court of learned Judge, Motor accident Claims Tribunal [additional District Judge], Khetri (Raj.) [for short 'the learned Tribunal'] in Motor accident Claim Case No. 81/2010, whereby an amount of Rs. 6,77,000/- has been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants-respondents on account of death of Prem Prakash in an accident which occurred on 25.01.2010. 2. The learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on the record and hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants- respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company has attacked the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue Nos.1 and 3 on the ground that the learned Tribunal has not evaluated the evidence in right perspective. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in recording the findings against the appellant-Insurance Company on issue Nos. 1 and 3. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company submits that the incident occurred on 25.01.2010 while the complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed after a delay of 21 days and no post mortem of the deceased was conducted, hence, the claimants-respondents have failed to prove the factum of accident of the deceased from the vehicle-in-question. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and submitted that after the accident the owner of the vehicle assured to give a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the claimants-respondents, but subsequently he denied, hence the delay has occurred in filing the complaint. Counsel further submits that on the complaint filed by the claimants-respondents under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., FIR was registered at Police Station Buhana, District Jhunjhunu for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-a IPC and during the course of investigation notice under Section 133 of the act of 1988 (Ex. P7) was issued to the owner of the offending vehicle (JCB) bearing No. RJ-18/Ea-0173 and the owner of the vehicle replied to the notice that at the time of accident, driver Somveer was driving the vehicle. P7) was issued to the owner of the offending vehicle (JCB) bearing No. RJ-18/Ea-0173 and the owner of the vehicle replied to the notice that at the time of accident, driver Somveer was driving the vehicle. Counsel further submits that after thorough investigation the Police Station Buhana, District Jhunjhunu submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Somveer for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-a IPC. 6. In support of his contentions, counsel for the respondents-claimants has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangla Ram Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company in Civil appeal Nos. 2499- 2500/2018 decided on 06.04.2018, whereby the Hon'ble apex Court has held that 'there is no reason to disbelieve the factum of accident when charge-sheet has been submitted against the driver of the offending vehicle'. 7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal as well as record of the case. 8. For appreciation of the arguments on issue Nos. 1 and 3, a close scrutiny of the documents available on the record has been done which clearly indicates that the accident occurred on 25.01.2010 and after thorough investigation the Police submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Somveer. 9. Bare perusal of the notice under Section 133 of the act of 1988 (Ex.P7) clearly indicates that the driver of the offending vehicle was plying the offending vehicle on 25.01.2010 when the alleged accident had occurred. 10. Thus, on a conjoint reading of the documents, I am of the view that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal do not suffer from any infirmity. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue Nos. 1 and 3 are just and proper and the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court. 11. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the appeal filed by the appellant- Insurance Company is devoid of merit and accordingly stands dismissed. 12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) dismissed.