JUDGMENT Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J. - This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 2.12.2006 passed in M.a.C.P. No.654 of 1999 by the Chairman, Motor accident Claims Tribunal, ahmednagar by taking aid of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988. 2. Let us have a glance on brief facts of the appeal. (i) Vithal Nanabhau Satpute (original claimant) was travelling in an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.MH-16-9441 from Sanjay Dhaba towards Kedgaon. The auto-rickshaw driver Ganesh was driving his rickshaw in a very moderate speed and one tempo trax bearing registration No.MH-Ba-5330 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and gave dash to the auto-rickshaw. The claimant Vithal sustained serious fracture injury. He was admitted in Dr. Deshpande Hospital at ahmednagar. He has incurred much expenditure on his medical treatment. Due to accidental injuries, his life span is shortened. He could not enjoy his normal life due to accidental injuries. He has filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 against the owner and driver of the tempo trax and sought compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. (ii) The tribunal, after considering the rival pleadings of the parties, evidence on record and argument advanced on behalf of both the sides was pleased to award the compensation of Rs.75,000/- (inclusive of NFL amount) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation by fastening the responsibility jointly and severally on the owner/appellant and driver of the offending vehicle/tempo trax. (iii) Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal, owner of the tempo trax has preferred this appeal. 3. Heard Ms R.V. Sundale holding for Mrs C.S. Deshmukh, learned advocate for appellant and Mr N.C. Garud, learned advocate for respondent no.1. Mr P.P. Dawalkar, learned advocate for respondent no.2 remained absent at the time of argument. 4. Ms R.V. Sundale, learned advocate for appellant vehemently submitted that the compensation determined by the tribunal is exorbitant. There was no iota of evidence about income of the claimant. The tribunal has miscalculated the compensatioin amount. Next limb of the argument of Ms R.V. Sundale is about liability to obtain insurance policy on the finance company. according to her, the vehicle/tempo trax owned by the appellant was purchased on the basis of finance advanced by the finance company. There was no iota of evidence about income of the claimant. The tribunal has miscalculated the compensatioin amount. Next limb of the argument of Ms R.V. Sundale is about liability to obtain insurance policy on the finance company. according to her, the vehicle/tempo trax owned by the appellant was purchased on the basis of finance advanced by the finance company. It was the liability of the finance company to obtain the insurance policy of the vehicle when it has advanced the loan to the appellant. according to Ms Sundale, appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. Mr N.C. Garud, learned advocate for respondent no.1/claimant supported to the findings recorded by the tribunal. He submitted that the claimant had sustained fracture injury in the accident. He has proved the expenditure incurred for medical treatment. The tribunal has awarded very reasonable compensation though claimant is entitled to get more compensatioin. He, therefore, urged to dismiss the appeal. 6. I have considered the submissioins of learned advocates for respective sides. I have also gone through the impugned judgment and award. It was a injury claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988. 7. Ms Sundale, learned advocate for the appellant invited my attention to the impunged judgment, more particularly paragraph 7 and pointed out that the testimony of the claimant is unworthy of credence. On going through the observations made by the tribunal in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment, it is noticed that the tribunal has considered that aspect and accordingly, reduced the claim and awarded reasonable compensation on the basis of medical bills, treatment expenses and under other heads, I do not find any merit in the submissions of Ms Sundale, learned advocate for the appellant. 8. So far as responsibility of the finance company for obtaining insurance policy of a vehicle is concerned, I do not find any merit in the submissions of Ms Sundale, learned advocate for appellant. It is the duty of the owner of the vehicle to obtain insurance policy though he has borrowed the loan from the finance company to purchase the vehicle. He cannot blame the finance company for not obtaining insurance policy and avoid liabity. 9. On careful study of the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal, I do not find any merit in the appeal. He cannot blame the finance company for not obtaining insurance policy and avoid liabity. 9. On careful study of the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal, I do not find any merit in the appeal. The tribunal seems to have awarded reasonable compensation on the basis of evidence on record. There is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal. ORDER (i) The First appeal stands dismissed. (ii) No order as to costs. (iii) The R & P be sent back to the M.a.C.T., ahmednagar