Hon’ble Krishna Singh, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved against the impugned judgment and award dated 28.7.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge Kanpur Nagar in MACT No. 1150 of 2011 (Rajveer Singh and another v. Jai Singh Sachan and another) awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 11,45,854/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum to the respondents-claimants, inter alia, on the ground that awarded amount of compensation is excessive and also that the Tribunal has not calculated the compensation as contemplated in law.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that on 12.9.2011 at about 3 p.m, while deceased Vikrant Singh was going from Vijay Nagar to his home (driving) by motor cycle, met with an accident near OFC Gate Kaalpi Road. At the time of accident, deceased was hit from behind by the motor vehicle/car (bearing Registration No. UP 78 BX - 2707). Accident had occurred due to the rash and negligence driving of the driver of the said vehicle. Respondent No. 3 is the owner-cum-driver of the said offending vehicle. At the time of accident, the said offending vehicle was insured with the appellant. The age of deceased was 22 years. Deceased was bachelor and earned about Rs. 1,34,570/- per annum through property dealing. Respondents No. 1 and 2 (father and mother respectively) are the legal representatives of the deceased. On 29.9.2011, the First Information Report was lodged by respondent No. 1 against the driver of the said offending vehicle at Police Station Armapur. After investigation of the case, police submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 279, 338, 304-A and 427 IPC against the owner-cum-driver of the said offending vehicle. Post mortem of the deceased was conducted and doctor submitted the post mortem report on 13.9.2011.

3. Respondents-claimants No. 1 and 2 have examined three witnesses in support of their claim including Rajveer Singh, PW-1 (father of the deceased).

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that accident in question has not taken place with the vehicle in question which has been stated in the claim petition and the Tribunal has failed to consider the fact that the FIR had been registered after an in-ordinate delay of more than 12 days. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider the fact that at the time of accident, the deceased was not wearing helmet, as such worst to worst under any circumstances contributory negligence on the part of the deceased was fully established. The Tribunal has in fact mis-construed the site plan on record. The deceased was unmarried and the Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier upon age of deceased when in fact it should have been applied upon the age of parents of the deceased.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has submitted that compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the respondents/claimants is just and proper as such present, appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. It is true that the FIR of the accident had been lodged at Police Station Armapur on 24.9.2011 i.e. after 12 days of the accident. In our opinion, claim/evidence adduced by the claimants cannot be disbelieved on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR because an explanation for the delay has been given by the informant/Rajveer Singh-PW-1 which is as under:

^^eSa vius ,dykSrs iq= dh e`R;q ds xe esa gksus ds dkj.k o fØ;k&dje esa O;Lr gksus ds dkj.k vHkh rd fjiksVZ ugha fy[k ldk FkkA**

8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that explanation given by the informant is reasonable and plausible.

9. In view of the evidence adduced by the respondents/claimants before the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that the deceased had died on account of injuries sustained by him in the road accident on 12.9.2011 at about 3 p.m. and the sa