JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. By the medium of this appeal, the appellant-the United India Insurance Company Limited has questioned the award, dated 14th May, 2007, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II), Fast Track Court, Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ?the Tribunal?) in MAC Petition No. 19 FTC/2 of 05/06, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.2,45,000/- with interest at the rate of 7½% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-respondent 1 herein, (for short, the ?impugned award?), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. Claimant Sunil Kumar filed the claim petition before the Tribunal and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 3. Only the insurer of the scooter, i.e. the United India Insurance Company Limited, has questioned the impugned award, on the ground of saddling it with liability. 4. The other respondents, i.e. the claimant, the driver-cumowner of the scooter, the driver, the owner and the insurer of the Mahindra Jeep, have not questioned the impugned award, on any count, thus it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them. Brief Facts: 5. Claimant Sunil Kumar filed the claim petition for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-, on the ground that he was pillion rider on the scooter bearing engine No. 030271, chassis No. 464196 (not registered), which was being driven by driver, namely, Vinay Kumar, rashly and negligently, on 20th May, 2005, at about 11.15. a.m., near Sabji Mandi, Police Line, Solan; sustained injuries and became permanently disabled. 6. The claim petition was resisted and contested by all the respondents, on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 7. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 21.01.2005: ?1. Whether the petitioner has sustained injuries on account of rash/negligent driving of scooter by respondent No. 1? …..OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom? …OPP 3. Whether the accident has taken place on account of rash/negligent driving of the jeep by respondent No. 3? ..OPR- 4. Whether respondent No. 2 is not liable to indemnify respondent No. 1 as alleged?…OPR-2 5. Whether respondent No. 3 did not possess a valid or effective driving licence? …OPP 3. Whether the accident has taken place on account of rash/negligent driving of the jeep by respondent No. 3? ..OPR- 4. Whether respondent No. 2 is not liable to indemnify respondent No. 1 as alleged?…OPR-2 5. Whether respondent No. 3 did not possess a valid or effective driving licence? …OPR-5 6. Whether the vehicle was being plied without any valid documents? …OPR-5 7. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action against the respondents? …OPR-5 8. Relief.? 8. Claimant examined Dr. Sandeep Jain (PW-1), H.C. Ram Nath (PW-2) and Shri Jia Lal (PW-3). Claimant Shri Sunil Kumar also appeared in the witness box as PW-4. Shri Vinay Thakur, owner-cumdriver of the scooter appeared himself in the witness box as RW-1. The National Insurance Company Limited examined Arun Aluwalia as RW-2. 9. The Tribunal, after scanning the entire evidence, held that driver Vinay Kumar was driving the offending vehicle, rashly and negligently, claimant Sunil Kumar sustained injuries and became permanently disabled. 10. Vinay Kumar, driver-cum-owner of the scooter has not questioned the findings returned by the Tribunal. 11. I have gone through the evidence and the record. I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly recorded the said findings. 12. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the accident was outcome of contributory negligence. This argument is devoid of any force for the reason that no such plea has been taken by the United India Insurance Company in its reply and has specifically pleaded that the accident had taken place due the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the scooter and issue No. 3 was framed to this effect. It was asked to lead evidence to this effect. 13. Admittedly, the appellant-The United India Insurance Company Limited has not led any evidence, thus has failed to discharge the same. 14. The other issues are not in dispute. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on the said issues are upheld. 15. Having said so, the appeal merits dismissal. The same is accordingly dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. 16. The Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque. 17. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on record.