JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The appellant-Rabindra Kumar Agarwal, owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.JH10J 7089 has preferred this appeal against the award dated 28.01.2017 passed in Title (M.V.) Suit No.65 of 2009 passed by District Judge II-cum-M.A.C.T. Judge, Dhanbad, whereby the compensation amount has been awarded to the tune of Rs.4,32,000/-in favour of the claimants namely, Kamlawati Devi @ Kalawati Devi, Kedar Nath Ram and Naveen Kumar Ram as husband and father of the respondents-claimants namely, Late Jhagru Ram respectively died on 17.09.2008 at 09:00 P.M. because of motor vehicle accident while standing besides the G.T. Road at Kouabandh when one motorcycle bearing registration no.JH10J 7089 registered in the name of the appellant, Rabindra Kumar Agarwal dashed him and caused multiple grievous injuries, brought to PMCH from where Doctor has referred him Bokaro/Appolo Ranchi and in the way he died in the ambulance. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the vehicle of the appellant has not been identified as the offending vehicle in view of the evidence led by P.W.4 (Bijendra Singh) who has admitted in paragraph 7 of his cross-examination, that he is owner of Trimurti Hotel. His statement was recorded by the police at the police station where he has disclosed the registration number of the motorcycle as JH10J 7089 but admitted that no person can see the registration number of the offending vehicle from the place where he was standing. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that the appellant has been fastened wrongly by the learned Tribunal without having any material, as such the appellant deserves to be discharged from the liability by giving benefit of doubt and in view of evidence of P.W.4 (Bijendra Singh). Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that apart from that there is no evidence on record that motorcycle standing in the name of the appellant is the offending vehicle, as such, impugned award may be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents Mr. Dinesh Kumar has submitted that, accident has taken place on 17.09.2008 at 09:00 P.M. for which Govindpur P.S. Case No.311 of 2008 under Section 279 and 304A IPC has been registered, in which the police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet, the same have been brought on record as Exhibit-2 and Exhibit-3. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents Mr. Dinesh Kumar has submitted that, accident has taken place on 17.09.2008 at 09:00 P.M. for which Govindpur P.S. Case No.311 of 2008 under Section 279 and 304A IPC has been registered, in which the police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet, the same have been brought on record as Exhibit-2 and Exhibit-3. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has further submitted that there is no dispute that the vehicle of the appellant was seized by the police and after due investigation, driver of the motorcycle has been charge-sheeted by the police, as such, plea taken by the appellant is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has further submitted that in the evidence of the witness (P.W.4-Bijendra Singh) at para 7, it has been categorically stated that the statement was recorded by the police where he has disclosed registration number of motorcycle as JH10J 7089, as such, any suggestion given by the defence will not dilute or absolve the appellant from the liability rather from the police record of Govindpur P.S. Case No.311 of 2008, it appears that offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing registration no. JH10J 7089 has been seized in this connection, which was released on the application filed by the appellant and in the said release application, the appellant has never raised any question that his motorcycle has not met with accident and wrongly seized by police. 5. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court cannot enhance the scope of taking note that whether motorcycle has met with an accident or not in absence of any contrary material on record. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned judgment of award in favour of the claimants as the vehicle of the appellant bearing registration no. JH10J 7089 was never insured with the Insurance Company on the date of alleged occurrence. As per the appellant the document which has been brought on record shows that the vehicle was insured for the period from 19.09.2008 to 18.09.2009 but the accident took place on 17.09.2008 meaning thereby on the date of accident, the vehicle was not insured, as such, the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the award against the appellant. 7. As per the appellant the document which has been brought on record shows that the vehicle was insured for the period from 19.09.2008 to 18.09.2009 but the accident took place on 17.09.2008 meaning thereby on the date of accident, the vehicle was not insured, as such, the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the award against the appellant. 7. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents-claimants as well as the Insurance Company and perused the impugned award. 8. After hearing, learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly the motorcycle of the appellant bearing registration no.JH10J 7089 was seized by the police in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No.311 of 2008 under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and after investigation the police submitted charge-sheet and both the documents have been brought on record as Exhibit-2 and Exhibit-3. The vehicle was released on the application filed by the appellant, as such, this Court has no reason to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned Tribunal has rightly considered that the motorcycle of the appellant bearing registration no.JH10J 7089 is the offending vehicle. Since the document produced as Exhibit-9 shows that vehicle was insured for the period from 19.09.2008 to 18.09.2009 and prior to that accident has already taken place on 17.09.2008. 9. Appellant has not adduced any evidence so far the Insurance of his motorcycle is concerned. 10. Under the aforesaid circumstances, learned Tribunal has rightly held that vehicle was not insured before the Insurance Company and the appellant is the registered owner of the vehicle who is rightly saddled with the compensation. It appears that the learned Tribunal has rightly calculated the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.4,32,000/-out of which Rs.50,000/-has already been paid under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, as such, Rs.3,82,000/-has been awarded with interest @ 6% per annum, out of which the appellant has already deposited Rs.1,50,000/-pursuant to the order passed by this Court and Rs.25,000/-as statutory amount for preferring appeal before this Court, as such, out of awarded amount of Rs.3,82,000/-the appellant has deposited Rs.1,50,000/-along with Rs.25,000/-i.e. total Rs.1,75,000/-leaving aside Rs.2,07,000/-along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application and less any other amount deposited, if any. In absence of any cross appeal for enhancement, this Court is not considering the enhancement of the award in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Dharmpal and Sons Vs. UP State Road Transport Corporation, 2008 (4) JCR 79 SC as such without going into such detail showing any illegality or error of record, the Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby dismissed. 11. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to remit the statutory amount deposited before this Court within a period of four weeks from today before the learned Tribunal, Dhanbad in Execution Case No.61 of 2017. The learned Executing Court shall disburse after getting said amount as well as the amount deposited by the appellant to the claimants/respondents in accordance with law. 12. If the appellant fails to deposit the said amount within a period of 90 days from today, the Executing Court shall take all endeavors to recover the rest amount along with interest so as to indemnify the awarded amount.