JUDGMENT Honble S.U. Khan, J.—At the time of arguments in this appeal no one appeared for the respondents even though case was taken up in the revised list accordingly, only the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant were heard. 2. This appeal is directed against judgment, award and order dated 31.5.1990 given by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IXth Additional District Judge, Allahabad in Motor Accident Case No. 81 of 1986, Smt. Kalawati Devi and others v. Jaishree Singh and others. One Amar Nath died in a motor accident. His widow Kalawati Devi and others (respondents) filed the claim petition giving rise to this appeal claiming compensation of Rs. 2,05,000/-. The tribunal below awarded the compensation of Rs. 93,600/-. Half of the awarded compensation was directed to be paid by owner/insurer of the vehicle bearing No. URS 9650 and the other half by owner/insurer of the vehicle bearing No. RNB 331. 12% interest was also awarded. The deceased was travelling in mini bus bearing No. URS 9650. It collided with the truck No. RNB 331 head-on. Appellant insurance company was insurer of mini bus bearing No. URS 9650. 3. In para-14 of the impugned judgment the argument of appellant regarding limited liability has been considered. It is also mentioned in the said para that the appellant had filed photostat copy of insurance policy. The contention was rejected on the ground that in the insurance policy number of the vehicle was not mentioned. Copy of the said photocopy has been filed alongwith Supplementary affidavit in this appeal. In the said policy engine number and chasis number has been mentioned. Address of the owner given therein is also the same as was given in the claim petition. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that normally insurance policy is taken before taking out the vehicle from the show room and registration number by R.T.O. is provided after about a week. I fully agree with the contention of learned counsel for the appellant. An owner of a motor vehicle is entitled to get the vehicle registered with R.T.O. within a week from its purchase. Merely because in the Insurance policy the registration number of the vehicle was not mentioned, it could not be said that it was not connected with the vehicle in question. Address of the owner was the same. An owner of a motor vehicle is entitled to get the vehicle registered with R.T.O. within a week from its purchase. Merely because in the Insurance policy the registration number of the vehicle was not mentioned, it could not be said that it was not connected with the vehicle in question. Address of the owner was the same. Engine number/chassis number given in the policy tallied with the said numbers of the engine and chassis of the vehicle. Accordingly under Section 95 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 liability was limited. In the Insurance policy there was no mention that liability was un-limited or enhanced than minimum. 4. Accordingly appeal is allowed in part. Impugned order is modified. It is directed that appellant is not liable to pay more than Rs. 15,000/- alongwith awarded interest under the impugned judgment and award. Rest of the 50% amount shall be payable by the mini bus owner i.e. respondent No. 2-Jai Shri Singh. ————