Judgment : SAHAY, SINGH, JJ. ( 1 ) THE present appeal has been preferred by Sitaram Akinchan, o. P. No. 1 in Compensation Case No. 111 of 1990 against the order of Claims tribunal, Ranchi dated 18. 12. 2002 by which he has been directed to pay Rs. 75,000 to the claimant Rajesh Sharma, respondent no. 1. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts necessitating the present appeal are that for an accident dated 5. 6. 90 the claimant, respondent No. 1, has claimed compensation, admittedly caused by rash and negligent driving of motor cycle bearing registration No. BR 14-S 5666 belonging to the appellant. The appellant has pleaded before the Claims Tribunal that his motor cycle was not being driven by him rather it was stolen and someone else was involved in the alleged accident. The appellant has further pleaded that the motor cycle was insured during the period of accident. ( 3 ) THE respondent claimed compensation on the ground of having received the grievous injuries resulting in permanent disability and protracted treatments. The claims Tribunal found and held that the motor cycle in question was not insured on the date of occurrence as the insurance certificate issued mentioned the date from which insurance commenced,. e. , from 11. 6. 1990 and the accident took place on 5. 6. 1990, The Claims Tribunal further held that respondent No. 1 has suffered permanent disability. However, keeping in view the delay and latches on part of claimant- respondent No. 1 interest was awarded only from 27. 1. 2000. ( 4 ) THE appellant has reiterated the plea that motor cycle was stolen during the accident and the claim of the appellant was highly inflated. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. H. C. Prasad stressed before us that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of some other person, therefore, the liability cannot be fastened upon the appellant. It is also averred that in absence of any medical evidence and production of disability certificate after long gap the disability should not have been assessed more than 25 per cent. Therefore, the amount of award should be held excessive. No one appears today on behalf of respondent No. 1 though he has withdrawn the statutory amount deposited in the case having appeared earlier. Therefore, the amount of award should be held excessive. No one appears today on behalf of respondent No. 1 though he has withdrawn the statutory amount deposited in the case having appeared earlier. ( 5 ) WE have considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant along with the impugned order dated 18. 12. 2002. The accident took place on 5. 6. 1990 involving motor cycle bearing No. BR 14-S 5666 belonging to the appellant is not disputed. It has also come on record that the said motor cycle was not insured prior to 11. 6. 1990. Therefore, the liability to compensate the respondent No. 1 for an accident dated 5. 6. 1990 squarely lies upon the owner, the appellant. ( 6 ) THE second part raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the amount of compensation is excessive. It has also come on record that Rs. 50,000 has already been paid to the respondent No. 1 under section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act as interim compensation. We find that the learned claims Tribunal has relied upon the certificate issued in favour of the respondent No. 1, as well as some documents related with treatment and expenditure incurred during his treatment marked X-series for identification. The claimant-respondent has to undergo treatment at different places. ( 7 ) IN the circumstances, we do not find that amount of compensation is excessive in nature. Accordingly, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 18. 12. 2002 and, therefore, present appeal is without merit. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .