1. This Civil First Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award dated 25th November, 2011 (for short, `impugned award') passed by the Presiding Officer of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, (for short, `MACT'), Srinagar, in a claim petition titled Naushad Hussain v. Bashir Ahmad Mugal and others, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. At the very outset, it is observed that since none appears for respondents 2 & 3. They shall stand set ex-parte. The brief facts of the case are summarized as under: 3. One Mr. Naushad Hussain, claimant-respondent No. 1, being the victim of vehicular accident, filed a claim petition before the MACT for grant of compensation to the tune of rupees fifty lacs as per the break-ups given in paragraph 12 of the claim petition. Respondent-Insurer therein filed objections. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, following issues were framed: "a) Whether on 12.07.2001, when the petitioner was on scooter travelling from Kupwara towards Lolab and on reaching near Gouse, a bus bearing registration No. 8148/JK01B coming from the opposite side and driver rashly and negligently by the respondent/ driver, hit the petitioner, as a result of which the petitioner fell down from the scooter and received grievous injuries? (OPP). b) Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the instant claim against the respondents, as such, the same merits dismissal? (OPRs). c) In case the issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? (OPP)." 4. Claimant, Nowshad Hussain (respondent No. 1 herein) examined Dr. Manzoor Ahmad Halwai, Associate Professor, Bone & Joint Hospital, Srinagar; Gayoor Hassan; Kalbi Hussain; Mohammad Shahbaz; and Abdul Rouf Qari as his witnesses, besides appearing himself in the witness box to record his statement. The appellant-Insurer examined one Syed Hilal Ahmad, Assistant Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, as witness. 5. Precisely, the case of the claimant was that, while riding a scooter and going by the correct side, he was hit by a Bus bearing registration No. 8148-JK01B which was driven rashly and negligently by one Bashir Ahmad Mugal, driver, at Lolab, Kupwara. He sustained grievous injuries because of negligent and rash driving of the driver of the Bus aforementioned and the scooter was also damaged. He sustained grievous injuries because of negligent and rash driving of the driver of the Bus aforementioned and the scooter was also damaged. All the witnesses examined by the claimant-respondent No. 1 have deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, therefore, had caused grievous injuries on his right leg. He was taken to District Hospital, Kupwara wherefrom he was referred to Bone & Joint Hospital, Barzulla, Srinagar. He underwent surgery and as per the opinion of the doctors he was declared to have had sustained ligament injuries. Thereafter, on the opinion and advice of the doctors, he was referred to outside the State for treatment, being the case of ligament cut. He was admitted at Delhi Hospital and was treated in Sehgal Nursing Home, Delhi, by Dr. Ashok Rajagopal, a knee specialist surgeon. He conducted the surgery on the claimant and his ligament was repaired through arthroscopic surgery, He remained in the Hospital for three to four days and was advised complete bed rest. On discharge, he was directed to visit the Hospital off and on, which constrained him to hire a room on rent for eight months in Delhi. There is also evidence on the record which discloses what amount he had spent for surgery and treatment. 6. The Insurer-appellant has not lead any evidence in rebuttal, but evidence was lead to the effect of driving license. Thus, the evidence of the claimant had remained unrebutted. It needs a mention here that Mr. Syed Hilal Ahmad had deposed that the driver was not having the valid license. 7. Now, let me deal with the issues framed in the case and the findings recorded thereon by the learned MACT. Issue No. 1. The Tribunal after examining the entire evidence and record has already held that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver Bashir Ahmad Mugal and claimant sustained grievous injuries. Thus finding returned by the Tribunal to that effect is upheld. Issue No. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has not pressed issue No. 2. However, I have examined the pleadings and finding returned by the Tribunal which need no interference at all. Accordingly, issue No. 2 to that aspect is upheld. Issue No. 3. Thus finding returned by the Tribunal to that effect is upheld. Issue No. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has not pressed issue No. 2. However, I have examined the pleadings and finding returned by the Tribunal which need no interference at all. Accordingly, issue No. 2 to that aspect is upheld. Issue No. 3. The Tribunal after examining the documents, medical certificate, vouchers and other aspects of the matter, has rightly held that the claimant is entitled to the award of rupees 3,88,000.00 (three lac eighty eight thousand only) under various heads keeping in view the principle of granting the compensation in injury cases, pecuniary damages and non-pecuniary damages. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to establish that the amount awarded is, in anyway, excessive. In fact, it is a meagre one, but claimant-respondent No. 1 has not chosen to question the impugned award on account of inadequacy of compensation by filing any appeal or cross appeal. The interest awarded by the Tribunal seems to be also reasonable. 9. The Tribunal has also awarded costs to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- and has made some observations which are uncalled for and, therefore, deserve to be expunged and deleted. 10. Accordingly, in so far as the award of compensation to the claimant-respondent to the tune of Rs.3,88,000/- with interest is concerned, the order impugned is maintained. However, in so far as it relates to making remarks and imposition of exemplary costs, the same is set aside. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent hereinabove indicated. 11. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant-respondent No.1, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award. 12. Registry is also directed to remit the record forthwith alongwith a copy of this order to the Tribunal. 13. Disposed of alongwith connected CMPs.