1. Challenge in this appeal is to the Award dated 24th February, 2009, hereinafter for short as impugned Award, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, hereinafter for short as MACT, in a claim petition titled Sajad Ahmad Rather v. Mohammad Ashraf Ganai and others, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. BRIEF FACTS 2. Claimants-respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition before the MACT, Srinagar being the victims of vehicular accident for awarding compensation on the ground that respondent No. 3 Gulzar Ahmad Ganai-driver has driven the offending vehicle (Tata Vehicle) bearing registration No. JK03-4618 on 18th December,2003 rashly and negligently and while coming from Aishmuqam to Anantnag, met with an accident at Aishmuqam Mufasil Market. Respondent No. 1-claimant sustained injuries. FIR in Police Station Aishmuqam was lodged under Sections 279 and 337 of Ranbir Penal Code. Claimant was referred to Bone and Joint Hospital, Srinagar where he was under treatment. 3. The claimant was constrained to file a claim petition for grant of compensation as per the breaks up given therein. The claim was resisted by the Insurer on the grounds taken in the written statement filed in opposition to the claim petition and following issues came to be framed:- 1. "Whether on 18.12.2009 the petitioner was hit by vehicle bearing No. JK03/4618 at Aishmuqam Mufasil Market, which was being driven by the respondent/driver rashly? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the instant claim against the respondent/company, as such, it merits dismissal? OPP-2 3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving license at the time of alleged accident, as such, the company cannot be saddled with liability? (OP-2) In case issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom ? (OPP) 5. Relief." 4. Witnesses in support of respective stands were examined both by the claimant and Insurer Company ISSUEWISE FINDING: 5. The oral evidence sufficiently prove that driver has driven the offending vehicle on the fateful date rashly and negligently and caused accident resulting in grievous injuries to respondent No. 1, therefore, Issue No. 1 has rightly been decided in favour of respondent No. 1-claimant and against the appellant-respondent. It is worth recording that appellant has not questioned the findings returned on issue Nos. It is worth recording that appellant has not questioned the findings returned on issue Nos. 1 and 2, therefore, are upheld. Issue No. 3 6. Insurer-appellant had to discharge the onus of this issue which it failed to do as it had not proved that driver was not having the valid licence. There is no evidence on the file which can be made basis for holding that driver was not holding valid licence. Even otherwise, it is for the insurer to plead and prove that driver was not having the valid licence at the relevant point of time, insurer was knowing that driving licence was not valid and he had committed a willful breach. MACT, had rightly held that neither there is any proof that driver was not having the valid licence nor has owner committed any willful breach. 7. Therefore, the findings recorded on issue No. 3 are perfectly correct and needs no interference. Issue No. 4 8. There is documentary evidence which discloses that claimant was admitted in Barzulla Hospital under MRD No. 10211 upto 22nd December, 2003. He had undergone operation and had sustained compound fracture. His leg has shortened by half an inch, has spent 1.50 lacs on medical and other expenses including transport facilities. Claimant was undergoing computer diploma course, had to leave it midway because of the injuries sustained in the accident. He is limping permanently and as per the evidence is still under treatment. 9. The Doctor has proved permanent disablement certificate EXPA which discloses that claimant has suffered permanent disability. 10. The MACT after taking all aspects into consideration and after making guess work has reached to the conclusion that claimant has suffered 25% permanent disability, therefore, awarded Rs. 60,000/- for losing all amenities of life, Rs. 50,000/- on account of suffering mental and physical pain, shock and suffering; Rs. 56,000/- on account of medical treatment, transportation, diet expenses, attendant charges and other pecuniary damages; Rs. 50,000/- on account of suffering mental depression, disappointment, discomfort and hardship. 11. In all the MACT has granted an Award of Rs. 2,16,000/- to the claimant which appears to be too meager, for, the claimant has to suffer the pain and trauma of this fatal accident throughout his life and it has made his life a real hell. However, the claimant has not chosen to challenge the same, therefore, it is maintained. 12. 2,16,000/- to the claimant which appears to be too meager, for, the claimant has to suffer the pain and trauma of this fatal accident throughout his life and it has made his life a real hell. However, the claimant has not chosen to challenge the same, therefore, it is maintained. 12. Viewed thus, the impugned award is held to be quite reasonable and needs no interference. 13. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.