JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 17.02.2023 passed by learned District Judge-I-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal , Pakur, in Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Case No. 41 of 2017 whereby a sum of Rs. 14,89,264/- was awarded in favour of the claimant. 3. Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the appellant submits that that the learned court has erroneously fastened liability upon the appellant who is owner of the vehicle in question. He submits that amount has not been calculated in terms of policy in view of that this appeal may kindly be admitted. 4. It appears from the judgment of the learned tribunal that compensation case was instituted stating therein that deceased-Suleman Soren son of Somay Soren along with Dharam Hembram on 07.03.2017 at about 12.00 P.M. was going to Pakur from his house Aprol on his motorcycle and when he reached at Sonadhani Dhalan situated between Borio and Littipara under Littipara police station, a Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. JH16A/8844 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently came and dashed the motorcycle as a result of which Suleman Soren and pillion rider Dharam Hembram sustained grievous injuries. With support of local people they were taken to Community health centre from where they were taken to Sadar hospital, Pakur for better treatment. Thereafter, again on 07.03.2017 Suleman Soren was referred to Murshidabad for better treatment and from Murshidabad Medical college he again on 08.03.2017 was referred to N.R.S. Medical college and hospital, Kolkata where during course of treatment the victim Suleman Soren succumbed to his injuries on 15.03.2017 while another victim Dharam Hembram after being treated at Murshidabad returned back to his house. Pursuant to that Littipara P.S. Case No. 12/2017 dated 15.03.2017 was registered under sections 279, 304A of IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. JH16A/8844 for investigation. Charge-sheet was submitted under sections 279 and 304A of IPC against Mantu Kumar Gupta for the death of the deceased, namely, Suleman Soren on account of his rash and negligent driving. The earning of the deceased was said to be Rs. 18,500/- per month and he was aged about 30 years. 5. In this background, the learned tribunal has decided the case. Four witnesses have been examined on behalf of claimants. The earning of the deceased was said to be Rs. 18,500/- per month and he was aged about 30 years. 5. In this background, the learned tribunal has decided the case. Four witnesses have been examined on behalf of claimants. Issue No. 4 was framed by the learned tribunal whether the said vehicle at the time of alleged accident was insured or not. The owner appeared before the learned tribunal and he was examined as O.P. No.1 and has stated that said Bolero Vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd and he has produced the xerox copy of insurance certificate of vehicle bearing Registration No. JH16A/8844 (exhibit-9) and xerox copy of owner book (exhibit-4). Exhibit-9 was found to be certificate of insurance bearing policy no. 0314823116P116694614 issued by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. in the name of Sandip Singh-appellant which covers the period from 09.03.2017 till midnight of 08.03.2018. The United India Insurance Company Ltd.-O.P. No.2 in its written statement has stated that the said policy was issued by the company on 09.03.2017 i.e. after two days of the alleged accident. In support of its contention O.P. No.2 has filed a duplicate of insurance policy marked as Exhibit-B wherein the accident has taken place on 07.03.2017 and the insurance was valid from 09.03.2017 to 08.03.2018. Meaning thereby that the offending vehicle/Bolero bearing Registration No. JH16A/8844 on the relevant date of occurrence dated 07.03.2017 was not covered with valid and effective insurance policy. In the light of that the learned tribunal has found that that the vehicle in question was not insured on the date of accident and in view of that liability has been fastened upon the appellant who happens to be the owner of the said vehicle. 6. The learned tribunal further relied on the judgment of “Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & others” reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and has decided the amount of compensation. The Court finds that there is no illegality in the calculation of the amount by the learned tribunal. 7. In view of above facts, no case of interference is made out. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed.