JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. H. K. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents. 2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the insurer of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.TR-01-J-7688 [Bajaj Pulsar Motorbike], the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., questioning the judgment and award dated 05.10.2012 delivered in Title Suit (MAC) No.341 of 2010. 3. In this appeal, the basic facts relating to the accident and its consequence are not in dispute. On 25.09.2009 at about 12 p.m. the claimant-respondent No.1 and her husband Biswajit Dey, who succumbed to the injuries received in the accident that occurred while travelling to visit the puja pandals by riding the scooter bearing registration No. TR-01-E-5050 [LML Vespa], one motorbike bearing registration No.TR-01-J-7688 [Bajaj Pulsar Motorbike] being driven by one Debajyoti Banshi with two other pillion riders negligently and rashly coming from the opposite direction dashed the scooter which was being driven by the deceased husband of the claimant-respondent No.1 in the extreme left side of the road. As a result, both the claimant-respondent No.1 as well as her husband received injuries but her husband namely Biswajit Dey succumbed to the grievous injuries on 26.09.2009 at GBP Hospital, Agartala. The entire accident could occur for the serious negligence of the other biker who also died in the accident. Biswajit Dey who succumbed to the injuries was a Government Medical Officer. However, he used to get a fixed salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. At the time of accident, he was aged about 38 years. Though the compensation was claimed for Rs.36,00,000’00, but the tribunal on examination of the records awarded a sum of Rs.36,15,000.00 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition i.e. 10.09.2010 till the payment is made. Since the biker who was driving the offending vehicle owned by the respondent No.3 was entirely responsible for the accident, the awarded sum has been directed to be paid by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., the appellant herein, inasmuch as the said vehicle was insured by them and the accident occurred during the validity of the said insurance policy. The payment was directed to be made within 30 days from the date of the judgment. The payment was directed to be made within 30 days from the date of the judgment. It is to be noted here that with that amount of Rs.36,15,000’00, a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been directed to be deducted from the amount of the compensation to be paid exclusively to the claimant-respondent No.1. No grievance has been expressed by the claimant-respondents. Only the insurance company by way of the grounds of objection as urged in this appeal has questioned the judgment and award. 4. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company has urged before this court three grounds namely (1) that the scooter was not insured with any insurer and thus the scooter is being driven on the road in violation of the provisions as made in Section 147 of the M.V. Act it had contributory negligence (2) the compensation as assessed is too exorbitant and that cannot be treated as the fair compensation within the meaning of Section 168 of the M.V. Act and (3) that there was no tenable proof of age of the deceased on record before the tribunal and as such the selection of the multiplier is based on no evidence. 5. Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, learned counsel however has submitted that the tribunal has decided the age of the victim based on the post mortem report where the age of the deceased has been shown as 38 years and the said post mortem report has been exhibited as Exbt.2 series by the tribunal. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has further submitted that the claimants have also submitted the final police report whereby the biker of the vehicle owned by the respondent No.3 was found entirely negligent, rash and bereft of usual care and was liable to be tried under Section 279/338/304-A of the IPC. However, since he died in the said accident the further action was terminated. The said police report is also admitted in the evidence as Exbt.1 series. The claimant-respondent No.1 deposed before the tribunal as PW1 where she has categorically stated that age of her husband who lost his life in the accident that had occurred on 25/26.09.2009 at about 1 p.m. at night was 38 years. But no cross-examination was carried out regarding that statement in respect of the age of the deceased either by the owner of the motor bike or by the insurer. 6. But no cross-examination was carried out regarding that statement in respect of the age of the deceased either by the owner of the motor bike or by the insurer. 6. After scrutiny of the records, this court is unable to accept the objection as raised by Mr. Gautam, learned counsel that since the scooter which was being driven by the deceased Biswajit Dey was not insured with any insurance company and since it may, if the allegations are correct, be amounting to contravention of provision of Section 147 of the M.V. Act that act may be treated as the contributory negligence. Negligence or contravention in not securing the vehicle bearing registration No.TR-01-E-5050 [LML Vespa] insured by any insurance as mandatorily directed by Section 147 of the M.V. Act may be the breach of law, but it cannot called by any stretch contributory negligence so far negligence contributing to the accident is concerned. So far the objection as to the proof of age is concerned, this court does not find any infirmity in the finding of the tribunal inasmuch as the tribunal has taken consideration of the medical evidence as well as the oral statement made by the wife of the deceased, which was not confronted in the cross-examination. So far the objection as to the assessment of the compensation is concerned, Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has submitted that the objection is based on the age as has been determined by the tribunal as, according to him, the same has not been determined by the best evidence. 7. As the deceased was a Government employee, the claimant-respondent No.1 should have produced the best evidence such as the age recorded in the service records or any other documents such as the certificate issued by the board of examinations or by the hospitals but admittedly, those were not produced. But from the post mortem report it has transpired that the age of the deceased has been recorded as 38 years. Even the claimant-respondent No.1 in the inquiry has clearly stated that the age of her husband was 38 years and that statement was not even confronted by the appellant-insurer in the inquiry. As such, this court does not find any infirmity in selecting the multiplier as selected by the tribunal. Even the claimant-respondent No.1 in the inquiry has clearly stated that the age of her husband was 38 years and that statement was not even confronted by the appellant-insurer in the inquiry. As such, this court does not find any infirmity in selecting the multiplier as selected by the tribunal. Thus, this objection also falls through and accordingly this court does not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the award as made by the tribunal and accordingly this appeal stands dismissed. 8. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has submitted that a sum of Rs.27,36,000’00 has been deposited in this Registry in terms of the order of this court and to meet the statutory requirement at the time of filing of the appeal. The Registry shall disburse the amount as already deposited having due regard to the impugned judgment and award. But the remainder of the amount shall be deposited by the appellant-insurance company within two months from today without fail in the tribunal and on such deposit the said amount shall be disbursed to the claimant-respondents in terms of the judgment and award dated 05.10.2012 delivered in Title Suit (MAC) No.341 of 2010. Send down the LCRS.