JUDGMENT : (Nupur Bhati, J.) : 1. This misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘Act’) has been preferred by the appellant/non-claimant- Insurance Company challenging the validity of the judgment and award dated 21.06.2016 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaur (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.52/2011 (377/2014), whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.11,86,500/- in favour of claimants/respondents No.1 to 6 along with interest @7.5% p.a. The liability of paying the compensation was fastened upon all the non-claimants jointly and severally. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.38,01,000/- on account of unfortunate death of sole breadwinner late Sh. Ganpat Ram, in the accident, which took place on 09.01.2014. In the claim petition, it was stated that on 09.01.2014, deceased Ganpat Ram at about 08:00 pm was going on motorcycle as pillion rider from Karnu to his ‘Dhani’ on motorcycle bearing registration number RJ-21-SK-3308. The motorcycle was being plied by Gopal Singh (non-claimant No.1) rashly and negligently and on account which Ganpat Ram fell down and received grievous injuries. On account of injuries, Ganpat Ram died during treatment on 20.01.2014. The claimants stated that deceased was doing construction work and apart from the doing the construction work, he used to do agriculture work. The deceased was thus earning Rs.15,000/- per month from doing the aforesaid works. 3. After issuance of the notices of the claim petition, reply to claim petition was filed by non-claimant No.1 and 2 while denying the submissions made in the claim petition. It was stated that no accident took place by the motorcycle. The deceased met with accident with another vehicle, however, with a view to claim compensation, the FIR of the accident was lodged while falsely implicating the motorcycle. It was further stated that at the time of accident, the vehicle was insured and, therefore, liability of paying the compensation, was of the insurance company. 4. On behalf of appellant- Insurance Company, reply to claim petition was filed while denying the facts stated in the claim petition, except that the vehicle was insured by it. It was stated that rider of the motorcycle was not having valid and effective licence to ply the vehicle and no premium was charged covering the risk of pillion rider. 4. On behalf of appellant- Insurance Company, reply to claim petition was filed while denying the facts stated in the claim petition, except that the vehicle was insured by it. It was stated that rider of the motorcycle was not having valid and effective licence to ply the vehicle and no premium was charged covering the risk of pillion rider. It was thus prayed that the insurance company be exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation. 5. The learned Tribunal, on the strength of pleadings of the parties, settled four issues for determination. 6. For proving his case, the claimants examined witnesses, viz. AW.1 Rami Devi, AW.2 Bhura Ram, and AW.3 Shera Ram and also placed on record documents, which were exhibited as Ex. 1 to 37. The Non-claimant No.1 examined himself as NAW.1. No documentary evidence was tendered by the non-claimants. 7. The learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue No.1, after considering the evidence produced before it, has recorded a finding that after investigation in the FIR No.16/2014 lodged by complainant, Bhura Ram Jat, at Police Station Panchodi, District Nagaur, charge sheet was filed against the rider i.e. Gopal Singh for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and no explanation was furnished by said Gopal Singh for his false implication in the accident. The learned Tribunal decided Issue No.2 against the insurance company while recording a finding that the non-claimant was having valid licence to ply the motorcycle. The learned Tribunal decided the issue No.3 partially in favour of claimants and after considering the evidence brought before it, awarded compensation of Rs.10,61,424/- towards the loss of income on account of death of Sh. Ganpat Ram. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium. The learned Tribunal thus awarded a sum of Rs.11,86,500/- (round off). For the amount of compensation, all the non-claimants were held jointly and severally liable. 8. None appeared on behalf of respondents No.7 & 8 despite service. 9. The instant misc. appeal was admitted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.12.2016 and execution of the impugned judgment and award was stayed, subject to appellant depositing Rs.9,00,000/- along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from 19.12.2016. The amount upon being deposited was directed to be disbursed to the claimants on moving an appropriate application. The amount upon being deposited was directed to be disbursed to the claimants on moving an appropriate application. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance submits that FIR in this case was lodged after 11 days of the accident without assigning any plausible reasons for such an inordinate delay, though as per the version of AW.3 Shera Ram, who was styled as eyewitness of the accident, has stated that he immediately informed about the accident to Bhura Ram, brother of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as per the story set out in the FIR, the accident took place on a straight road due to negligent driving of motorcyclist and the pillion rider fell off the motorcycle, whereas as the version of the eyewitness Shera Ram (AW.3), the motorcycle got slipped at the curve of the road and the deceased sustained head injury. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the accident, no injury has been sustained by the rider i.e. Gopal Singh and further as per the report of the MTO and seizure report, no scratch marks were found on the motorcycle, which bound to be there on account of slipping of the motorcycle. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as per the Naksha Mauka, the accident had taken place on a straight road and not at the curve, as stated by the eyewitness of the accident. Thus the learned Tribunal has erred in deciding the issue No.1 in favour of claimants. Learned counsel for the appellant further drew attention of the Court towards the testimony of Gopal Singh (Non-claimant No.1), who in his statements, deposed that at the time of accident, he was not even present at the place of occurrence and was at Jodhpur, but the same has not been considered and due weightage has been given to the statement of AW.3 Shera Ram. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that charge sheet is not a conclusive proof of negligence and the negligence is required to be proved by independent and corroboratory evidence and, therefore, the finding recorded on issue No.1 while relying upon the charge sheet deserves to be set aside. 11. Questioning the quantum of amount of compensation, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in quantifying the loss of income and awarding 50% towards future prospects. 11. Questioning the quantum of amount of compensation, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in quantifying the loss of income and awarding 50% towards future prospects. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the case where the deceased is self employed or not on fixed salary, the actual income at the time of death without any addition to income for future prospects should be counted. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants opposed the submissions made by counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable and, therefore, the same deserves to be upheld. He submits that in the accident, Ganpat Ram sustained injuries and the first and foremost duty was to provide treatment the injured person and, therefore, some delay had occasioned in lodging the FIR, which in the given circumstances cannot be said to be fatal. He further submits that charge sheet was filed against the non-claimant No.1, which fact remained unrebutted, and no remedy was availed by the non-claimant No.1 against filing of charge sheet in the FIR lodged by the complainant. He thus submits that the judgment and award impugned does not call for any interference and the misc. appeal be dismissed. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned award and through scanned the material available on record. 14. In order to thrash out the matter for ascertaining cause of accident, resulting in untimely death of deceased, the impugned award deserves judicial scrutiny on Issue No.1. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal decided Issue No.1 in favour of claimants while recording the finding that upon report being submitted by complainant, Bhura Ram, FIR No.16/2014 was registered at Police Station Panchodi, District Nagaur; wherein after investigation, charge sheet for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC was filed against non-claimant No.1, Gopal Singh. However, no explanation was furnished by said Gopal Singh for his false implication in the accident. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal, upon scrutiny of evidence, found that it was the non-claimant No.1, who plied his vehicle rashly and negligently, as a result of which the pillion rider sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. However, no explanation was furnished by said Gopal Singh for his false implication in the accident. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal, upon scrutiny of evidence, found that it was the non-claimant No.1, who plied his vehicle rashly and negligently, as a result of which the pillion rider sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. This Court also finds that interestingly, before the learned Tribunal no such arguments have been raised that non-claimant No.1 ever denied his presence at the time of accident and that he was at Jodhpur at the time of accident, and for the first time, these submissions have been made. In the considered view of this Court, such submissions cannot be appreciated or gone into at the appellate stage. 15. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal considering the material produced before it has treated the deceased to be a labourer and has quantify the amount of compensation while taking into consideration the minimum wages at Rs.4914/- per month and has rightly awarded 50% towards future prospects. The learned Tribunal has considered the number of dependents, who were six in number and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th deduction towards personal expenses and thus the amount of compensation quantify at Rs.10,61,434/-towards the loss of income, is just and the same calls for no interference. This Court also finds that the amount awarded in favour of claimants towards funeral expenses and loss of consortium is also adequate. 16. In view of above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and award and no case of enhancement is made out. The appeal has no force. The misc. appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. The remaining amount of compensation under the interim order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court be paid to the claimants within a period of six weeks from today with interest, as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Record be sent be back.