JUDGMENT S.D. Agarawala, J. - This is a First Appeal From Order filed u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gorakhpur, dated 28th May, 1986, by which the claimant Mohammad Isha, respondent No. 1, was granted a compensation of Rs. 6,000/-. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under: 3. On 9th September, 1982, an accident occurred near Terhwa at Maharajganj-Pharenda Boad, Mohammad Isha was then a student of Class X, aged about 14 years. He was going on a bicycle from his school to village Barehara where he was going on his left side. When he reached near Terhwa, a Tractor No. URO 3250 came from Pharenda side and going towards its wrong side, collided with Mohammad Isha, as a result of which he received simple as well as grievous injuries. The injury was a fracture of the pelvic bone. He was treated in the hospital for more than a month. Thereafter, Mohammad Isha filed a Claim Petition for a sum of Rs. 36,000/- (Rs. 25,000/- for compensation for the injuries sustained, Rs. 5,000/- for medical expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony and suffering and Rs. 1,000/- for loss of studies) besides cost and interest. 4. The claim was denied by the appellant on the ground that, in fact his tractor was not involved at all in the accident. He has further urged that the driver of the tractor was a person who held a valid licence, and, as such, it was his case that the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation. He has further disputed the quantum payable to the claimants. 5. The Tribunal framed nine Issues. The most relevant Issues, in the present case, are Issue Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Whether the claimant received injuries in the accident on account of rash and negligent driving of tractor No. URO 3250 by its driver Shiv Narain and Whether the aforesaid tractor was never involved in the accident. 6. On examining the evidence on the record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant did sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of tractor No. URO 3250, which was being driven by Shiv Narain. It was further held that the tractor of the appellant was involved in the said accident. 6. On examining the evidence on the record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant did sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of tractor No. URO 3250, which was being driven by Shiv Narain. It was further held that the tractor of the appellant was involved in the said accident. The further finding on Issue No. 8 was that Shiv Narain, who was driving the tractor, did not hold a valid driving licence. 7. Aggrieved by this decision of the Claims Tribunal, the present appeal has been filed in this Court. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant have vehemently contended that, in-fact, the tractor of the appellant was not involved in the accident and, as such, the entire claim decreed against him is not maintainable. The second contention is that the driver of the tractor was not Shiv Narain and the person who was driving the tractor was another person. It was further held that the account of compensation is excessive. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant has taken me through the oral evidence filed in the case. The main oral evidence in support of the claim is by Mohammad Isha himself, who has been examined in the case as PW 1. On an examination of the evidence of PW 1, I am of the opinion that his statement is reliable and the view taken by the Claims Tribunal relying upon the statement cannot be said to be erroneous in law. The other witnesses of the accident have actually become hostile in the criminal case pending against the appellant and, as such, they could not be produced in support of the claim. The reasons given by the Claims Tribunal for accepting the claim of Mohammad Isha (PW 1) are cogent reasons and, in my opinion, the assessment made by the Claims Tribunal is a correct assessment of the evidence on the record. 10. From the evidence of PW 1 itself, it is established clearly that the tractor of the appellant was involved in the accident and that it was further driven by a person Shiv Narain who did not hold a valid licence. 10. From the evidence of PW 1 itself, it is established clearly that the tractor of the appellant was involved in the accident and that it was further driven by a person Shiv Narain who did not hold a valid licence. I do not find any legal infirmity in the finding recorded by the lower court in regard to the fact that the tractor of the appellant was involved in the accident and that it was driven by Shiv Narain who did not hold a valid licence. 11. In regard to the quantum of compensation, the court below has granted Rs. 4,000/- only as compensation for the injuries sustained by Mohammad Isha. It is not disputed that the pelvic bone of Mohammed Isha has been broken and he was treated in the hospital for about a month. In fact, the court below has been very liberal in awarding a very paltry amount of compensation, though facts of the case warranted much larger amount of compensation but since the respondent has not filed any appeal, it is not necessary for me to enhance this compensation. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- has been granted for legal expenses and Rs 1,000/-for mental shock. These, in my opinion, are also very reasonable and no interference is called for. 12. Learned Counsel for the appellant has, in the end, further contended that, in fact, the insurer should have been held liable to pay the compensation. In view of the finding, that the tractor was being driven by Shiv Narain, who did not hold a valid driving licence, the Insurance Company could not be held liable in view of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Certificate and, as such, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant has no substance. 13. In the result, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.