JUDGMENT V. M. Deshpande, J. (Oral) - Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 09.12.2003 passed by the learned Member of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Akola in M.A.C.P. No.339/1998, the National Insurance Co. Ltd. is before this Court by filing the present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under : Dadarao Sukhdeo Shirsat filed a petition for compensation before the Court below. He asserted in the claim petition that he used to work as a driver of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Depot No.1, Akola. He used to reside at Anvi (Mirzapur). It is the further statement in the claim petition that on 28.12.1997, he was going from Anvi (Mirzapur) to Borgaon Manju in an auto rickshaw, having registration No. MH30/E-710 and the same was owned by respondent no.2 in the claim petition (respondent no.8 herein). Respondent no.1 in the claim petition (respondent no.7 herein) was driving the said auto rickshaw. The driver of auto rickshaw was negligent and was driving it in high speed resulting into an accident near Borgaon Manju railway station, in which Dadarao suffered injuries in the nature of fractures. He was taken to the District Hospital, Akola and was indoor patient from 28.12.1997 to 31.12.1997. Subsequent to that, he was under medical treatment in the hospital of Dr. Ghuge for 11/2 months. He incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 10,200/- on medical treatment and Rs. 3,000/- on travelling expenses. It was also his case that he used to earn Rs. 4,500/- per month. According to the claim petition, due to the accident he suffered 32% permanent disability and therefore, he claimed compensation. 3. In spite of service of the summons, all respondents except the present appellant (respondent No.3 in the claim petition) appeared. A written statement was filed on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company (Exh.15). As per the written statement, auto rickshaw was not insured with the appellant and therefore, appellant-Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation. 4. Dadarao entered into the witness box to substantiate his claim. Nobody entered into the witness box to prove the claim for and on behalf of the Insurance Company. During pendency of the claim petition, Dadarao expired and therefore, names of the present respondent nos. 1 to 6 were substituted in place of Dadarao. 5. 4. Dadarao entered into the witness box to substantiate his claim. Nobody entered into the witness box to prove the claim for and on behalf of the Insurance Company. During pendency of the claim petition, Dadarao expired and therefore, names of the present respondent nos. 1 to 6 were substituted in place of Dadarao. 5. The learned Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. Hence, this appeal. 6. I have heard Shri D. N. Kukday, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S.D. Chopde, the learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 5. Nobody appeared for respondent nos.1, 6, 8 and 9, though they are duly served. 7. The only submission that was advanced before this Court by Mr. Kukday, the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the offending vehicle was not inured with appellant - Insurance Company, the appellant is not liable for the compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Oriental Fire & Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Dr. G.R.Purohit and others, reported in I (1999) ACC 138. 8. Per contra, Mr. Chopde, the learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 5 supported the impugned judgment. 9. There is no dispute about the occurrence of accident on 28.12.1997. It is also not in dispute that at the time of accident, Dadarao was one of the passengers in the auto rickshaw. It is also not disputed before this Court also that Dadarao suffered permanent disability to the extent of 34%. 10. According to the appellant, no insurance policy is placed on record. True it is, the insurance policy is not placed on record. The learned Member of the Tribunal has relied on document (Exh.32) issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Akola in respect of offending vehicle, which shows that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance Company and the insurance policy was in force from 07.8.1997 to 06.8.1998. Thus, it is clear that on the day of the accident, the insurance policy was in force. Thus, it is clear that on the day of the accident, the insurance policy was in force. According to the learned counsel for the appellant since insurance policy is not on record, the entry in the Registration Certificate given by the Regional Transport Authority cannot be held to be conclusive proof and for that he relied on Oriental Fire & Insurance Co. Ltd.''s case (supra). 11. I have gone through the aforesaid judgment of this Court in detail. The said case is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the said case, according to the claimants, the offending vehicle was owned by defendant no.2 and it was a case of the Insurance Company therein that defendant no.2 was not the owner of the offending vehicle and in addition to that, it was not insured with the Insurance Company. It was found that the offending vehicle was not owned by defendant no.2 as claimed by the claimant and in that context it was the verdict of this Court that the entry in RTO book cannot be relied on. 12. In the present case, the original respondent no.2 Firoz Shah Daud Shah is the owner of the offending vehicle. His name do appear in the registration particulars (Exh.32). Not only that, it is not the case of the appellant - Insurance Company that said Firoz Shah is not the owner of the offending vehicle. 13. In the present case, it was always open for the Insurance Company either to enter into the witness box or call the official from the Regional Transport Authority to prove its defence. In that behalf reliance can be placed on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Gulabsingh and others, reported in I (2001) ACC 595. 14. No other point was raised before this Court. After re-appreciating the facts, I am of the view that no case is made out for interference. Hence, First Appeal is dismissed. No costs.