Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. Heard learned counsel for appellants and gone through the record. 2. This first appeal from order has been filed against the judgment and award dated 16.01.2012 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 308 of 2010 (Km. Vidya Devi Vs. Sumit Kumar and Another) whereby the learned Tribunal has decided the claim in favour of claimant and against the appellant and has awarded a sum of Rs. 44,612/- as compensation to the claimant along with 6% interest from the date of institution till the actual payment is made. The appellants have also challenged the order dated 06.09.2013 passed in R.M. No. 16 of 2012 whereby review application preferred by the appellants against the aforesaid judgment and award has been rejected. 3. As per facts of the case, the claimant aged about 16 years while coming back on foot from the Junior High School Sikandarpur Kallu at about 4:30 PM on 14.12.2009 had met with an accident with a Motorcycle bearing registration no. UP 30-D/9353 driven by appellant no. 2 who is said to be the son of appellant no. 1 (owner of the vehicle). Due to the said accident, the respondent no. 1 had suffered fracture at two places in her right leg. The occurrence of accident was seen by one Nawal Kishore and Saroj Kumar residents of the village of the claimant. The claim petition was filed by the injured Km. Vidya Devi-respondent no. 1. 4. Learned counsel for appellants submits that in the police investigation it has come that the claimant had received injury due to falling from roof and this fact has not been properly considered by the Tribunal. It is also submitted that the offending vehicle at the time of occurrence of accident was not driven by appellant no. 2-Sumit Kumar and the learned Tribunal has wrongly held that the driver of the offending vehicle was Sumit Kumar. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for appellant and gone through the record. 6. While deciding the claim petition, the learned Tribunal had framed certain issues which on reproduction read as under: "1. 2-Sumit Kumar and the learned Tribunal has wrongly held that the driver of the offending vehicle was Sumit Kumar. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for appellant and gone through the record. 6. While deciding the claim petition, the learned Tribunal had framed certain issues which on reproduction read as under: "1. D;k fnukad 14&12&09 dks le; yxHkx 4-30 cts xzke feJhiqj ds fudV Fkuk 'kkgkckn ftyk gjnksbZ esa eksVjlkbfdy ua0 ;w0ih0 30&Mh@9353 dks mlds pkyd us ykijokgh ls pykrs gq, ;kph dks lkeus ls Vddj ekj nh ftlls ;kph dks xEHkhj pksVsa vk;ha vkSj mldk nkfguk iSj nks txg QzSDpj gks x;k\ 2. D;k dfFkr nq?kZVuk ds le; nq?kZVuk esa 'kkfeyh okgu pkyd ds ikl okgu pykus dk oS/k ,oa izHkkoh pkyu vuqKfIr Fkh\ 3. D;k nq?kZVuk ds le; nq?kZVuk esa 'kkfey okgu la0 ;w0ih0 30&Mh@9353foi{kh la03 us'kuy bU';ksjsUl dEiuh ls fof/kr chfer Fkk\ 4. D;k ;kfpdh izfrdj izkIr djus dkh vf/kdkfj.kh gS ;fn gkW rks fdruk vkSj fdl foi{kh lsa\" 7. The learned Tribunal has decided the issue no. 1 by holding that the alleged accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of appellant no. 2-Sumit Kumar who is a minor in age. Due to the said accident, respondent no. 1 had suffered injuries and she is entitle to get compensation. 8. So far as the contention of learned counsel for appellants that in the police investigation it has come that the respondent no. 1-claimant had received injuries due to falling from a roof is concerned, the learned Tribunal has rightly observed that the investigation report of the police is not a conclusive evidence and it cannot be relied as an evidence in deciding an issue in the motor accident claim. There is nothing on record to show that the claimant had received the said injuries due to falling from a roof. 9. Learned counsel for appellants fails to substantiate his argument in this regard. 10. So far as the contention of learned counsel for appellants that the learned Tribunal has wrongly held that the offending vehicle was driven at the time of occurrence of accident by appellant no. 9. Learned counsel for appellants fails to substantiate his argument in this regard. 10. So far as the contention of learned counsel for appellants that the learned Tribunal has wrongly held that the offending vehicle was driven at the time of occurrence of accident by appellant no. 2-Sumit Kumar is concerned, the learned Tribunal while deciding the issue no.2 has come to conclusion that from the evidence on record to establish that the offending vehicle was driven, at the time of occurrence of accident, by Sumit Kumar who was not having valid license. The license which was brought on record relates to one Vipin Kumar and not of Sumit Kumar. There is nothing on record to show that the said vehicle was not driven by Sumit Kumar at the time of occurrence of the accident. 11. I am of the view that the learned Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the owner of the vehicle as the driver i.e. appellant no. 2-Sumit Kumar was a minor and not having a valid license at the time of occurrence of accident. 12. The review petition being not maintainable was rightly rejected by the leaned Tribunal. 13. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the orders impugned. 14. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 44,612/- as compensation to the respondent no. 1 which the appellants shall pay to the respondent no. 1. The learned Tribunal shall ensure the compliance of the said judgment and award. 15. The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed at the admission stage. 16. The statutory amount deposited at the time of filing of the appeal shall be remitted back to the Tribunal forthwith for the aforesaid purpose. _______________