JUDGMENT : GANESH RAM MEENA, J. 1. Since, both the appeals arise out of the common judgment and award dated 11.09.2018 passed by the Court of learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur (for short "the claims Tribunal) in Claim Petition No.184/2017 (205/2014), hence, same are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5462/2018 has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company with the challenge to the award, whereby liability of paying compensation has been imposed upon the Insurance Company. 3. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.205/2019 has been filed by the claimants for enhancing of the compensation amount. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company (in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 546/2018) submits that the findings of the learned Tribunal as regards the involvement of the vehicle insured by the Insurance Company are contrary to the facts and evidence on record. Counsel submits that the alleged accident is said to have taken place on 26.03.2014 at about 08:15 PM and there was a Roznamcha report at Chandwaji Police Station at 11:00 PM, wherein the number of the vehicles have not been mentioned as regards its involvement in the alleged accident. 5. Counsel also submits that the evidence of the Investigation Officer verifies the fact of recording the Roznamcha and the aforesaid evidence clearly speaks that the vehicle RJ23-GA-7686 was not involved in the alleged accident. However, the Claims Tribunal has committed an error in holding the involvement of the aforesaid vehicle in the alleged accident without there being any substantial evidence. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimants submits that there is ample evidence on record which clearly speaks that the vehicle RJ23-GA-7686 is the only vehicle which hit deceased-Satveer Singh resulting into his death. He also submits that evidence of the material witnesses proves the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. 7. Considered the submissions and perused the record. 8. The learned Tribunal has framed issue No.1 as regards the involvement of the vehicle and so also the issue of rash and negligent driving. 9. Smt. Rekha- A.W.-1, who is the wife of the deceased-Satveer Singh in her testimony has stated that while her husband was going on motor cycle, the truck bearing registration No. RJ23-GA-7686, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver hit from the back side and he sustained injuries which resulted into his death. 9. Smt. Rekha- A.W.-1, who is the wife of the deceased-Satveer Singh in her testimony has stated that while her husband was going on motor cycle, the truck bearing registration No. RJ23-GA-7686, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver hit from the back side and he sustained injuries which resulted into his death. In her statement, she has stated that initially the report was lodged against the unknown vehicle as none of the family members before lodging the report went to the spot, however, on making inquiry after lodging the report, the number of vehicles were given out to the police and the police after making a thorough investigation submitted the charge-sheet against the driver of the vehicle in question. Though, the said witness is not an eye witness of the accident, however, the evidence of this witness cannot be discarded out rightly as she after having an inquiry stated the vehicle number. 10. A.W.-2 Raj Kumar alias Omprakash in his statements has stated that at the time of alleged accident, he and one Kailash Singh were taking food on a hotel close to place of accident and they saw the vehicle in question which hit the motor cycle from the back side on which the deceased was riding which resulted into his death. The said witness has also given the details of the vehicle in question at the relevant time and he has also stated that he has informed the official of the Police Station on telephone regarding the accident. The Insurance Company has also produced Trilokinath, who was examined as NAW-1, who is not the eye witness and he is only the investigator of the Insurance Company. In his investigation report, he gave conclusion that the vehicle said to be involved in accident has been arranged by the claimants later on. 11. On perusal of the complete investigation report, the Court finds that the conclusion of the investigator of the Insurance Company is without any basis. He has not made any inquiry from any kind of witness or any person, who could be a material witness for recording such conclusion and, therefore, the report of the investigating officer, appellant-Insurance Company cannot be made basis for any kind of interference in the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal. 12. He has not made any inquiry from any kind of witness or any person, who could be a material witness for recording such conclusion and, therefore, the report of the investigating officer, appellant-Insurance Company cannot be made basis for any kind of interference in the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal. 12. The Police has also made an investigation into the allegations of rash and negligent driving after there being registering of the criminal case. After thorough investigation, the police has submitted the charge-sheet against the driver of the vehicle in question and found involvement of the vehicle in question in the accident. 13. On a notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") (Ex.12), the owner of the vehicle has admitted this fact that at the time of alleged accident, the driver of the vehicle in question was Dilip Singh, which goes to show that the vehicle in question was involved in alleged accident. 14. In view of the discussions made above, the Court finds that there is sufficient evidence available on record which could led to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident. 15. It is a well settled law that the strict proof and evidence for proving a fact in the claim matters under the Act, cannot be of a degree as required to prove a fact/allegation beyond reasonable doubt under the criminal law. 16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand, (2011) 11 SCC 635 has observed as under: "The other ground on which the High Court dismissed the case was by way of disbelieving the testimony of Umed Singh, PW1. Such disbelief of the High Court is totally conjectural. Umed Singh is not related to the appellant but as a good citizen, Umed Singh extended his help to the appellant by helping her to reach the doctor's chamber in order to ensure that an injured woman gets medical treatment. The evidence of Umed Singh cannot be disbelieved just because he did not file a complaint himself. We are constrained to repeat our observation that the total approach of the High Court, unfortunately, was no sensitised enough to appreciate the plight of the victim. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. We are constrained to repeat our observation that the total approach of the High Court, unfortunately, was no sensitised enough to appreciate the plight of the victim. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied." 17. In view of the discussions made above, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the findings and conclusion arrived at by the Claims Tribunal as regards the issue of involvement of the vehicle in question in the accident. 18. Accordingly, the appeal No.5462/2018 filed by the Insurance Company as regards the fact that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident, deserves to be dismissed. 19. The another issue raised by learned counsel for the appellant is on the question of quantum of compensation allowed by the Claims Tribunal to the claimants. 20. The claimants have also preferred the connected Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 205/2019 for enhancement of the compensation amount on various grounds. 21. After having arrived to the conclusion that vehicle in question was found in the accident, learned counsel for the Insurance Company proposed for enhancement of compensation amount to the tune of Rs.80,000/- and learned counsel appearing for the claimants on instructions accepts the proposal given by learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 22. In view of the aforesaid consensus, the amount of the compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal vide its award dated 11.09.2018 is enhanced by an additional amount of Rs.80,000/-. The Insurance Company shall pay the enhanced amount of compensation during the period of six weeks from today. In case, the Insurance Company fails to pay the enhanced amount within the aforesaid given period, the claimants shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. The award stands modified as above. 23. Accordingly, the appeal No.205/2019 filed by the claimants- appellants is disposed of and the Appeal No.2562/2018 is dismissed. 24. Record of the Tribunal be sent back immediately. 25. The award stands modified as above. 23. Accordingly, the appeal No.205/2019 filed by the claimants- appellants is disposed of and the Appeal No.2562/2018 is dismissed. 24. Record of the Tribunal be sent back immediately. 25. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this judgment in the connected case file. 26. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.