JUDGMENT : The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 27.06.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as the learned Tribunal) in Claim Case No. 9/2015 (CIS No. 9/2015) whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.5,22,596/- as compensation. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the claimants-respondents filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal stating inter alia that on 11.05.2014, on account of accident between the jeep bearing no. HR 45A 9191 and a pick up bearing no. HR 57 9010, Mukhram died. The claimants claimed a compensation of Rs.47,12,500/-. The claim petition was partly allowed and Rs.5,22,596 were awarded as compensation to the claimants-respondents. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal. 3. Mr. Mukul Singhvi, learned counsel representing the Appellant-Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in passing the impugned award. It is submitted that the FIR was filed after a delay of 4 days and no justifiable reason was given for the same. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has erroneously fixed the liability on the Appellant-Insurance Company and has not considered the aspect that there was contributory negligence on part of driver of the jeep. It is also submitted that the multiplier applied for assessing the compensation is also excessive. It is submitted that the deceased was above 60 years of age and as such, a multiplier of 5 should have been applied instead of 9 for calculating the amount of compensation. 4. Per contra, Mr. Rakesh Matoria and Mr. Kan Singh Oad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence on record has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award and thus, no interference is warranted. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence on record has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award and thus, no interference is warranted. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. On a perusal of the material available on record as well as the impugned judgment and award, it is clear that the deceased-Mukhram met with the accident on 11.05.2014 and he was admitted in Astha Hospital, Sirsa and remained hospitalized till 14.05.2014. Thereafter, he was referred to Monilek Hospital, Jaipur on 13.05.2014 and on 18.05.2014, he died during the course of his treatment. The aforesaid factual position is reason enough to justify the delay in filing of FIR. 7. I have perused the findings on issues no. 1 & 2 given by the learned Tribunal based on oral and documentary evidence from which it is clear that Mohar Singh, the driver of pick up bearing no. HR 57 9010 while driving in a rash and negligent manner hit the Max Jeep bearing no. HR 45A 9191, which was parked, due to which the deceased who was sitting in the jeep sustained injuries. Thus, it evident that there is no contributory negligence on part of the driver of the jeep as the jeep was rightly parked. 8. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the multiplier applied in awarding compensation is excessive, I have gone through the record. The claimants, in their claim petition have mentioned that the deceased was aged 52 years. The respondents have claimed that the age of deceased is over 60 years. However, no evidence is produced in support of this contention. AW-3-Dr. Rajnish Narula has opined that the deceased was about 60 years of age at the time of his death. As per the ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , the multiplier to be applied for age group 55-60 years is 9. 9. In view of the above, I find that the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is well reasoned and therefore, warrants no interference. 10. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 11. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.