JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is directed against the award dated September 20, 1982, passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Udaipur, awarding a sum of Rs. 72,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 2. The accident took place on December 15, 1974, on the Chittor - Bhilwara to Hitnmatlal, who was doing motor business and was aged 26 years. A claim-petition was filed by his wife, minor son and parents on May 3, 1975, before the Accidents Tribunal. It was alleged that Himmatlal was going on his motor-cycle from Chittor to Ajmer. When he was in front of the Labour Colony, near Chaadria village, the bus RJY-3872, hit him from behind. He was run over and died then and there. The bus was registered in the name of Heeralal, appellant herein, as owner and the driver of the bus was Rameshwarlal. It was alleged that the driver was driving the bus rashly and negligently. It was going on such a fast speed that it could stop after 70-80 ft even after the driver applied the brake. Heeralal, appellant, was expert. 3. The Tribunal, by the award dated September 20, 1982, awarded a sum of Rs. 72,000/- as compensation to the wife, minor children and the parents of the deceased, in the award. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the claimants, from the date of the award. It found that the driver Rameshwarlal was driving the bus rashly and negligently. According to the Tribunal, the deceased, on the date of the accident, was having a monthly income of Rs. 400/- per month, out of which he was contributing Rs. 300/- per month, towards the family. The dependency of the family on the income of the deceased, was therefore, held to be Rs. 3600/- yearly. The Tribunal, applied a multiplier of 20, and by doing so awarded the compensation of Rs. 72,000/- to the claimants, as aforesaid. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, passed by the Tribunal, Mr. Heeralal and Mr. Rameshwarlal have filed the present appeal in this Court. 5. On December 9,1987, this Court, passed the following order: During the course of the arguments it transpired that the Insurance Company has been absolved of its liability because the owner of the vehicle has failed to give a detailed particulars about insurance. "Mr. Heeralal and Mr. Rameshwarlal have filed the present appeal in this Court. 5. On December 9,1987, this Court, passed the following order: During the course of the arguments it transpired that the Insurance Company has been absolved of its liability because the owner of the vehicle has failed to give a detailed particulars about insurance. "Mr. R.R. Vyas, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he will try to seek instructions from his client and find out the particulars of the insurance. In case Mr. Vyas gets the insurance then he will supply them to Mr. Lohra, counsel for the Insurance and he will obtain the copy of the policy from the Insurance Company at Udaipur. Mr. Lohra is directed to find out the particulars of policy with reference to the vehicle No. RJY 3872 which is said to be insured at Udaipur office." 6. Mr. Vyas submits that he tried to find out the particulars of the Policy but he was unable to get the same. He is not in a position to furnish the particulars of the policy as desired by this Court in the order dated December 9, 1987. 7. Mr. Lohra also submits that the vehicle RJY-3872, was not insured with the Company on the date of accident. He has, in this connection, submitted before me a letter written to him by the Company on January 14, 1988. He has placed this letter on the record of the case. This may be taken on record. 8. In the absence of any material that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, it is not possible to fasten any liability of the Company, for paying the compensation, on accident. The Company has rightly been absolved of its liability by the Tribunal. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellants has further urged that the documents produced by him, along with the application filed by him under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. may be taken on record. The application filed by the appellants under order 41 Rule 27 CPC, was dismissed by this Court, on March 2, 1983. The order sheet reads as under: "Heard learned Counsel on the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. The documents now sought to be produced were very much in the knowledge of the appellant even during the pendency of the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The order sheet reads as under: "Heard learned Counsel on the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. The documents now sought to be produced were very much in the knowledge of the appellant even during the pendency of the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. There is no reason, why the documents were not produced during the trial of the claims petition before the Tribunal. The documents cannot be taken on record at the appellate stage. The application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. is rejected." 10. The application, having already been dismissed by this Court on March 2, 1983, it is not open to the appellants to urge the same prayer over again now. 11. On the quantum of compensation, I have gone through the award of the Tribunal and find no substance in the appeal, to justify interference. The amount awarded by the Tribunal rather tilts on the lower side. 12. No other point was urged by the counsel for the appellants. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 13. No order as to costs of the appeal in this Court.Appeal dismissed. *******