BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J.

(1). This appeal is at the instance of the Insurance Company in a proceeding under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and is directed against an award dated 18th July, 2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fifth Court, Burdwan, in M.A.C. Case No.27 of 2006 thereby disposing of the said proceeding by awarding a sum of Rs.6,35,580/- in favour of the claimants with the observation that out of the said amount Rs.5,000/- should be exclusively awarded in favour of the widow as loss of consortium with a direction upon the Insurance Company to pay the said amount within a specified date along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till the entire amount was paid. Being dissatisfied, the Insurance Company has come up with the present appeal.

(2). In the application for compensation, the claimants, the heirs and legal representatives of the victim, alleged that the victim while driving his own motorcycle was struck from behind by a truck insured by the appellant, as a result, the motorcycle hit the light post and the victim died. The victim was an employee of Punjab National Bank and was aged 46 years at the time of death. In spite of service of notice, the owner of the offending vehicle did not appear and it was the Insurance Company who contested the proceeding after taking leave under Section 170 of the Act.

(3). The specific defence taken by the Insurance Company in the written statement was that due to contributory negligence on the part of the victim, the said motorcycle had struck the light post and the truck concerned had no role to play in the accident. In other words, it was contended that the vehicle insured by the appellant was not at all involved in the accident but the said vehicle has been falsely implicated.

(4). At the time of hearing of the proceeding, four witnesses including two eyewitnesses deposed in favour of the claimants while the Manager of the Insurance Company and an investigator appointed by it gave evidence in opposing the claim-petition.

(5). As indicated earlier, the learned Tribunal below by the order impugned herein disbelieved the version of the Insurance Company and came to the conclusion that the offending truck was responsible for the death of the victim due to rash and negligent driving on the part of its driver.

(6). The learned Tribunal below accepted the claimants case that the victim was aged 46 years. The Tribunal below further found that the gross salary of the victim was Rs.8,415/- a month. The Tribunal below, however, proceeded to rely upon the net salary for the purpose of calculation of compensation and after deducting one-third of the same and by the application of multiplier of 13, arrived at the figure of Rs.6,26,080/-. Apart from the said amount, a further sum of Rs.4,500/-was given for funeral expenses and loss of estate and further sum of Rs.5,000/-for loss of consortium payable only to the claimant No.1.

(7). Being dissatisfied, the Insurance Company has come up with the present appeal. Mr. Das, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has raised only the question of involvement of the truck insured by the appellant in the accident. According to Mr. Das, it will appear from the F.I.R. lodged by the brother of the victim, that there was no mention of any truck involved in the accident and it was simply stated that the victim died due to the accident as a result of collision of his motorcycle with the light post. By relying upon such statement, Mr. Das contends that the involvement of the vehicle concerned is afterthought and in such circumstances, the Court should disbelieve the alleged eyewitnesses. In other words, Mr. Das contends that if the concerned truck was really involved, there would have been the reference of such truck in the F.I.R. Mr. Das in this connection places strong reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of General Insurance Council and Ors. Vs. State of