Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants.

2. This appeal is filed by the National Insurance Company Limited which was the third respondent before the Tribunal below against the order dated 22.3.2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Khammam in OP No.616 of 1997.

3. Shaik Afzal Miya, a carpenter, aged 30 years while returning from Domercharla Village by walk, was knocked down by an Ambassador Car at about 12.30 a.m., as a result of which he fell down and the said car ran over him. On receiving severe injuries, he died on the spot. One P. Ramulu, who was coming by walk along with the deceased informed PW1, the wife of the deceased about the accident. However, a case in Crime No.15 of 1997 came to be registered at Wadepally Police Station basing on the information received from a third party. The said report was to the effect that while the deceased was proceeding by walk, an Ambassador Car driven in a rash and negligent manner at fast speed, dashed him causing his instantaneous death. The fact, therefore, remains that in the First Information Report, a copy of which is marked as Ex.A1, the number of the offending vehicle was not furnished. The police, however, conducted investigation and ultimately found that the car bearing No.API 3411 driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased. The police after thorough investigation charge-sheeted Mirza Azmat Baig, the driver of the said vehicle for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC on the ground that he caused the death of the deceased by driving the Ambassador Car bearing No.API 3411 in a rash and negligent manner.

4. The claimants/respondents 1 to 4, who are the legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.2,60,000/-.

5. The learned Tribunal after making enquiry into the claim recorded a finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Ambassador Car bearing No.API 3411 and held that the 6th respondent, who is the owner of the said offending vehicle and the appellant insurance company with which it was insured at material time are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The learned Tribunal under various heads awarded compensation of Rs.1,73,200/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

6. In this appeal, the appellant/insurance company though contended that the compensation granted is on higher side, it's main contention appears to be that the learned Tribunal recorded an erroneous fining that the accident was caused due to involvement of the said car bearing No.AP 01 3411.

7. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company would contend that the First Information Report does not contain the number of the offending vehicle and subsequently, the claimants with the connivance of the owner, driver of the car bearing No.API 3411 and with the help of the police created a version that the said vehicle was involved in the accident. The learned Counsel would submit that since the finding of the learned Tribunal as to the involvement of the said vehicle is not based on evidence, it is liable to be set aside in this appeal and that the appellant/insurance company be exonerated from the liability to pay compensation to the claimants.

8. It is true that the claimants did not examine any eye-witness to the accident. PW1-Sizaik Yousuf Bee, the wife of the deceased is not a direct witness to the accident. Ex.A1-certified copy of the First Information Report reveals that the accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of an Ambassador Car though the number of the said vehicle is not mentioned in the First Information Report which was registered basing on the information furnished by a third party. Since the accident occur