B. Chandra Kumar, J.

1. Since the MACMA and the Cross Objections arise out of the award dated 02.12.2005 passed in MVOP No. 650 of 2003 by the III Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Warangal, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. MACMA No. 1245 of 2006 is filed by the Oriental insurance Company Limited against the said award whereas the Cross Objections (SR) No. 27068 of 2006 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

4. The first claimant is the wife, the second claimant is the minor son and the third claimant is the mother of the deceased. Their case is that on 25.04.2003 the deceased went to see his newly born son at Chinapendyal village. From that village he was returning on his Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing No. AP-36-1238. When he reached Madikonda at about 10.00 PM it is alleged that the Jeep bearing No. ABJ 0008 (Green colour) being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came in opposite direction and dashed against the Bajaj Chetak Scooter. As a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries. The driver of the jeep without stopping the jeep at the place of accident fled away with the jeep. PW.2 N. Malla Reddy who is the cousin of the deceased and who was also returning on another scooter behind the deceased has witnessed the accident. He shifted the deceased to Jaya Hospitals, Hanamkonda, however the deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was working as Conductor in APSRTC and earning Rs. 4466/- per month. They claimed compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/-.

5. The first respondent-owner of the jeep filed counter mainly contending that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased and there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

6. The second respondent-Insurance Company filed a counter, which was adopted by the third respondent. They contended that there is inordinate delay in lodging report to the police and that the jeep is not involved in the accident and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

7. The Tribunal framed necessary issues.

8. On behalf of the claimants the first claimant is examined as PW.1 and PWs.2 and 3 were examined and Exs. A1 to A16 were marked. On behalf of the respondents RW.1 was examined and Exs. B1 to B33 were marked. Exs. X1 and X2 were also marked by Court.

9. On the issue of negligence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep. On issue No. 2, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,70,524/- towards compensation.

10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the claimants have failed to prove the involvement of the jeep and therefore the claimants are not entitled for compensation. It is also his submission that the report was given to the police after 21 days of the accident and the police made false investigation and laid charge sheet against the jeep driver and that the Tribunal has not considered this fact. It is also his submission that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable amount and there is no need to enhance the compensation amount.

11. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that in the FIR itself the colour of the jeep has been mentioned as cream colour. Though jeep number is not mentioned but the police seized the jeep and noticed damages to the jeep and finally filed charge sheet against the driver of the jeep. Thus, his submission is that the finding of the Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of evidence with regard to negligence. It is also his submission that the claimants are entitled for higher amount.

12. It is not in dispute that the deceased was proceeding on his Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing No. AP-36-1238 and the accident occurred while he was returning from Medikonda. I