Judgment This appeal is against a judgment and award dated 11th March, 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Fourteenth Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in an application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being MACC No. 346 of 2001 whereby the respondent claimants have been awarded compensation of Rs.59,500/- on account of the death of the victim in an accident involving a vehicle allegedly covered by a policy of insurance taken out by the appellant insurer. In the written statement filed in response to the claim application, the appellant insurer, inter alia, contended as follows: “12. That the statements made in the foregoing paragraph nos.8 to 12 of the claim application are not correct and totally denied by this defendant save and except which are matter of records and reference and call upon the applicant to prove each and every statements and allegations stated therein. The Defendant further states and deny place and time of accident and F.I.R. lodged with the Police Station under whose jurisdiction alleged accident occurred. This Defendant under no circumstances is attached with the liabilities for payment of compensation as the vehicle allegedly involved in the accident was not covered by the Defendant under its Policy during material times. This Defendant/Respondent call upon the applicant to prove that the vehicle involved in accident was covered under the Policy of this defendant at the material time. 14. …………………………………… This respondent states that the vehicle was not covered under its policy during material times the applicant must prove that he has not received any payment as compensation from the Insurer, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 120, Lelin Sarani, Kolkata 700 013 as the vehicle was covered under the said Insurer during material time as evident from the Police Report.” The contention that the vehicle in question was not insured by the appellant insurer, but by New India Assurance Company Limited, is based on the seizure list issued by the police authorities on 4th October, 2001 in respect of the offending vehicle. It appears that the offending vehicle was seized on 4th April, 2001. The accident, however, took place on 25th November, 2000. The seizure list indicates that the insurance policy issued by the New India Assurance Company was valid till 12th March, 2002. It appears that the offending vehicle was seized on 4th April, 2001. The accident, however, took place on 25th November, 2000. The seizure list indicates that the insurance policy issued by the New India Assurance Company was valid till 12th March, 2002. Policies are generally issued for a period of one year and the aforesaid policy must have been taken out on or about 12/13th March, 2001, about four months after the accident. On the other hand, the certificate of registration of the offending vehicle was on record before the learned Tribunal and a copy thereof has been annexed to the paper book. The certificate of registration reveals that the vehicle was covered by a policy of insurance taken out by the appellant insurer, which was valid till 30th March, 2001. The said certificate of registration also gives the cover note number, which is 00769. Moreover, it appears that the question of whether the offending vehicle was at all covered by any policy of insurance taken out by the appellant insurer, was not made an issue in course of the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, indicating that even though the point may have been taken in the written statement, the point may have been given up at the time of commencement of trial, having regard to the information given in the certificate of registration. The certificate of registration reveals that the offending vehicle was covered by a policy of insurance taken out by the appellant insurer which was valid at the material time when the accident took place. Particulars were given. It was for the appellant insurer to refute such information on the basis of documents available with them including the original/office copy of the policy of insurance, which the appellant insurer has failed to do. The finding of the learned Tribunal that the appellant insurer was liable, is based on evidence. This Court does not ordinarily interfere with any finding based on evidence, unless such finding is patently incorrect and/or unreasonable. Having regard to the certified copy of the certificate of registration, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment and award under appeal. The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and award is affirmed. It will be open to the respondent claimants to withdraw the awarded amount, which is lying in deposit with the learned Registrar General of this Court along with interest accrued.