Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. 2. This appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Award dated 23.9.2003 and 7.11.2003 respectively, by which the learned Additional District Judge-XI, Patna allowed Compensation Claim Case No. 5 of 1995 filed by the respondents-claimants and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.7,16,180.00 plus simple interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till the date of realisation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that neither the vehicle was insured, nor any policy was filed by any of the parties and hence there was no occasion for liability of the appellant to pay any amount. He further submits that the learned court below committed grievous error in taking help of the statement in police case diary in a criminal case, which has resulted in acquittal, which was not at all admissible in evidence. He further contends that even the Driver had no licence and the owner and Driver have specifically stated that the occurrence did not take place at that place and in the manner claimed, which was proved by the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who had said that no mark was found on the vehicle. Hence he states that no award could have been legally passed against the appellant on such materials and on such vague findings of the lower court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents (claimants) submits that Rule 226 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1992 describes the documents and materials to be supplied which includes the report of the police station concerned regarding insurance, registration etc. With respect to the absence of licence of the Driver he submits that it was for the appellant to prove the same but he miserably failed to support his claim with any valid material. So far the statements of owner and the Driver are concerned, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submits that their statements were self serving and in case of death of a person the same cannot be reliable. 5. So far the statements of owner and the Driver are concerned, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submits that their statements were self serving and in case of death of a person the same cannot be reliable. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case as well as materials on record, it is quite apparent that non-production of the policy book by the claimants will not help the Insurance Company because the policy was seized by the I.O., which was clearly mentioned in para 26 of the case diary, which shows that the I.O. had found valid insurance policy and hence if the Insurance Company wanted to prove that the vehicle was not insured then it would have produced the appropriate register of the said year, but they failed to produce any evidence with respect thereto. Furthermore, it is apparent from the materials on record that P.W.1 was a Constable who was on duty and he said that he saw the accident, whereas RW. 2 is the son of the deceased, who has also supported the death of his father. There are other witnesses who have fully supported the claim case, whereas the Insurance Company has not produced any evidence before the learned court below. So far the quantum of claim allowed is concerned, the table used by the learned court below cannot be said to be wrong or illegal and the interest provided thereon also does not appear to be unjustified as they are in accordance with the specific provisions of law. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and award and accordingly this appeal is dismissed.