JUDGEMENT 1. THIS First Appeal is directed against the award and order, dated 31st March, 2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal II, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in MAC Petition No. 40P/2000, titled as Smt. Manju Sharma & another versus Raj Kumar & another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,40,000/ was granted in favour of the claimants respondents No. 1 and 2 herein and against the appellant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned award"), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. Brief facts: 2. IT is profitable to give a flashback of the case the womb of which has given birth to the appeal in hand. The claimants respondents No. 1 and 2 herein filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,50,000/ as per the break ups given in para 21 of the claim petition on the ground that one Ghanshyam Sharma, who was the husband of claimant No. 1 respondent No. 1 and father of claimant No. 2respondent No. 2, lost his life in a motor vehicular accident, which was caused by respondent No. 3 Raj Kumar, while driving the Maruti Van bearing registration No. PB02 A7399, rashly and negligently, on 18th June, 1998, near Panchrukhi, Mauja Saliana, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. Deceased Ghanshyam Sharma, who was travelling in the offending vehicle, sustained head injury, was taken to Sub Divisional Hospital, Palampur, was referred to PGI Chandigarh and died in the way. 3. IT is averred in the claim petition that the deceased was 27 years of age at the time of accident and was the only source of dependency. Claimant No. 1respondent No. 1widow has lost the matrimonial life and claimant No. 2respondent No. 2 has lost affection of her father and has become orphan. 4. THE appellant insurer filed objections and contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in the memo of objections. The insured owner driver of the offending vehicle did not contest the claim petition and was set exparte. 4. THE appellant insurer filed objections and contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in the memo of objections. The insured owner driver of the offending vehicle did not contest the claim petition and was set exparte. It appears that during the pendency of the claim petition, application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as the "MV Act") was filed by the appellant insurer to defend the case on all the grounds which were available to the owner and driver. The following issues were framed by the Tribunal: "1. Whether Ghanshyam Sharma, died in motor accident, which took place near Panchrukhi, Mauza Saliana, Tehsil Palampur, Distt. Kangra, on 18.6.1998, when he was travelling in a Maruti Van bearing registration No. PB02 A7399, was being driven by respondent No. 1 in rash and negligent manner as alleged?...OPP 2. Whether the petitioner being the legal representatives are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount?...OPP 3. Whether the respondent No. 1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence and he unauthorisedly allowed to drive the vehicle under intoxication without holding any valid and effective licence, if so, its effect?...OPR 4. Whether the petitioner is not entitled to claim compensation, as alleged?...OPR 5. Whether the offending vehicle was not insured with the respondent No. 3?...OPR 6. Relief." 5. THE claimants have examined Sanjeev Kumar in support of their claim and claimant No. 1widow has also appeared in the witness box. The claimants have also produced photo copies of post mortem report, registration certificate, driving licence, insurance policy and FIR. The appellant insurer has examined Ajit Singh, MHC of Police Station, Palampur and HC Shanti Swroop. 6. THE Tribunal, after examining the evidence on record and the documents, held that the claimants have proved that the insured owner driver, Raj Kumar, had driven the offending vehicle Maruti Van rashly and negligently on the said date and caused accident, in which deceased Ghanshyam Sharma sustained head injury and succumbed to the injury. The Tribunal also decided all the issues in favour of the claimants after holding that the driver was having the effective licence, vehicle was insured with the insurer appellant and claimants were entitled to seek compensation vide impugned award. The insurer appellant, feeling aggrieved, has questioned the impugned award by the medium of the present appeal. The Tribunal also decided all the issues in favour of the claimants after holding that the driver was having the effective licence, vehicle was insured with the insurer appellant and claimants were entitled to seek compensation vide impugned award. The insurer appellant, feeling aggrieved, has questioned the impugned award by the medium of the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant, while addressing arguments, argued that the deceased Ghanshyam Sharma was driving the vehicle, thus, the claimants cannot claim compensation and the Tribunal has fallen in error by granting compensation to the claimants. Issue No. 1: 7. WHILE going through the claim petition and the evidence on record, the positive case of the claimants was that Raj Kumar had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently and the claimants have also proved the same. There is nothing on record to prove that the vehicle was being driven by deceased Ghanshayan Sharma. It is to be kept in mind that the Tribunal/Court, while hearing the claim petitions, should not succumb to the niceties of law, technicalities and mystic maybe's. 8. THE Tribunal has framed issues on 10th June, 2004. The owner insured driver ought to have questioned the framing of issue No. 1, which he failed to do and even the appellant insurer has not questioned framing of the said issue till today. Thus, it cannot lie in the mouth of the appellant insurer that the vehicle was being driven by deceased Ghanshyam Sharma and not by respondent No. 3, namely Raj Kumar. The claimants have discharged their onus and accordingly, the findings returned on issue No. 1 are upheld. Issue No. 2: Admittedly, respondents No. 1 and 2 are the legal representatives of deceased Ghanshyam Sharma being widow and the daughter. So, the findings returned on issue No. 2 are upheld. Issue No. 3: 9. THE appellant insurer has specifically averred in the reply filed to the claim petition before the Tribunal that Raj Kumar was not having effective driving licence and accordingly issue No. 3 was framed. The insurer appellant had to discharge the onus, failed to do so. Thus, the insurer appellant has failed to prove that Raj Kumar was not having a valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, issue No. 3 came to be rightly decided against the insurer appellant. Issue No. 4: 10. The insurer appellant had to discharge the onus, failed to do so. Thus, the insurer appellant has failed to prove that Raj Kumar was not having a valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, issue No. 3 came to be rightly decided against the insurer appellant. Issue No. 4: 10. ADMITTEDLY, the claimants respondents No. 1 and 2 are the legal representatives of deceased Ghanshyam and are entitled to compensation. Thus, issue No. 4 also came to be rightly decided in favour of the claimants and against the insurer appellant. Issue No. 5: The offending vehicle was insured with the insurer appellant and the insurance policy is on the file. It is worthwhile to mention herein that neither the appellant insurer has disputed the insurance policy nor the learned counsel for the appellant insurer has raised any argument to that effect. Therefore, issue No. 5 came to be rightly decided against the insurer appellant. 11. THE Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,40,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition, i.e. 2nd June, 2000, till its realization and is reluctantly upheld. 12. HAVING glance of the above discussion, the impugned award merits to be upheld and the appeal merits to be dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.