JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Acting Chief Justice (Oral) The subject matter of this appeal is the award and order, dated 27th April, 2005, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal­ II, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No. 04­N/2 of 2003, titled as Nishant Surya versus Hari Ram & another, whereby compensation to the tune of ` 1,52,660/­ alongwith interest @ 9% per annum was granted in favour of the claimant­respondent No. 1 and against the appellant­insurer from the date of the petition till its realization (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”). Brief facts: 2. The claimant­respondent No. 1, who was employed as conductor, became the victim of the motor­vehicular accident, on 8th July, 2002, which was caused by the offending vehicle­truck bearing registration No. HP­16­1176, being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, namely Surender, near Andheri, and sustained multiple grievous injures. 3. The claimant­respondent No. 1 filed the claim petition for grant of compensation to the tune of ‘ 6,00,000/­ as per the break­ups given in the claim petition. 4. The owner­insured and the insurer­Insurance Company contested the claim petition. The following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the petitioner sustained multiple injuries in a motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of a truck (No. HP­16­1 176) by its driver near Sangrah, Tehsil Sangrah on July 8, 2002? ...OPP 2.If issue No. 1 is proved, what amount the petitioner is entitled to receive as compensation and from whom?... OPP 3.Whether the petition is not maintainable in the presentform? ...OPR­2 4.Whether the truck driver (deceased) had no valid driving licence at the relevant time? If so, its effect? ..OPR­2 5.Whether the truck in question was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as alleged? ... OPR­2 6.Relief.” 5. The claimant­respondent No. 1 examined witnesses in support of his claim. The Tribunal, after examining the entire record, awarded ‘ 1,52,660/­ as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization vide impugned award. 6. The claimant and the owner­insured have not questioned the award. Thus, it has attained finality so far it relates to them. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has not questioned the findings recorded by the Tribunal so far it relates to issues No. 1 and 3. 6. The claimant and the owner­insured have not questioned the award. Thus, it has attained finality so far it relates to them. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has not questioned the findings recorded by the Tribunal so far it relates to issues No. 1 and 3. Thus, I deem it proper not to thrash out the said issues. 8. The only dispute involved in this appeal is – whether the insurer­appellant is liable to pay the compensation? The answer is in affirmative. 9. It is apt to reproduce issue No. 2 herein: “2. If issue No. 1 is proved, what amount the petitioner is entitled to receive as compensation and from whom? ... OPP” 10.I have gone through the claim petition, pleadings, impugned award and the insurance policy. 11. The appellant has raised the issue whether the injured was a labourer or a conductor. In both the cases, he is covered in terms of the provisions of the insurance policy and had the remedy either to file petition under Workmen’s Compensation Act or to file claim petition before the Tribunal in terms of provisions of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “The MV Act”). It was for him to opt for any of the remedy, which he did so by filing the claim petition. Thus, the only argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant fails. 12.Accordingly, this appeal merits to be dismissed and the impugned award merits to be upheld. Appeal is dismissed as such and the impugned award is upheld.