1 F.A. 1160/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1160/2011 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through its Divisional Office, Divisional Manager, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. ...Appellant. (Orig. Respondent No.2.) Versus 1 Shaikh Karim s/o Shaikh Abdul, Age : 21 years, Occu. Labour, R/o Madina Nagar, Ardhapur, Tq. Ardhapur Dist. Nanded. 2 Sakharam s/o Madhavrao Mirase, Age : Major, Occu. Business and Owner of Auto No. MH-26/B-5576, R/o Malegaon, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. ...Respondents. Mr. S.V. Kulkarni, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H.I. Pathan, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED : 16th August, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. The appeal is finally heard for disposal at the stage of admission, by consent of both the parties. 4. The claimant who is respondent No.1 in this appeal was travelling in six seater which is owned by respondent No.2. He was travelling from Ardhapur to Nanded on 18/04/2008. On the way, mini 2 F.A. 1160/2011 door auto rickshaw (six seater) was turtled. So the claimant got injured. He filed claim application in the Court of M.A.C. Tribunal, Nanded for compensation of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Tribunal while entertaining the application filed by the claimant under section 140 of the Act, passed the order of the statutory compensation amount in favour of the claimant, against which present appeal is filed by the appellant / Insurance company. 5. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company raised objection only on the ground that the number of six seater mentioned initially in the claim application and in the document annexed to the F.I.R. by the police, disclosed a wrong registration number of the vehicle. The said document prepared by the police is produced by the learned counsel taken on record marked Exhibit X, for identification. It is true that though the number of impugned vehicle is MH-26/B-5576, the number mentioned of the vehicle in the police document is MH-26/7756. Similarly, the claimant in the claim application initially mentioned incomplete number i.e. “Auto No. MH-26/5576”. The learned counsel for the appellant agreed that the registration number MH-26/B-5576, is of a Mini door / six seater. It is case of the claimant that at the time of incident, he was travelling as a passenger in the Mini door / six seater. The number given in the claim application is not incorrect but it is incomplete, as the series (B) is not mentioned. However, the claimant by amending the claim application has corrected said flaw. The registration number mentioned in the document which is prepared by the police, can not be accepted as authentic or correct registration number of the impugned vehicle. When the make of the vehicle mentioned as described by the claimant 3 F.A. 1160/2011 and if tallied correctly with the registration number, then there can not be any doubt that the claimant has given a correct number of the vehicle and the order passed by the learned Tribunal about the statutory compensation against the insurance company and can not be faulted. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The amount deposited by the Insurance company / appellant be remitted to the Tribunal. [SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.] ts k/2011/August16/fa1160.11