JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 6.8.2008, made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Dharamshala in claim petition No. 81-K/2005 titled Kulbir Singh versus Shri Shobhit Mittal and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,58,545/- along with interest @ 7½ % came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and against the insurer Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award.” 2. The insurer, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, has questioned the same through the medium of the present appeal, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 3. The respondent-claimant has also filed the cross-objections for enhancement of compensation. Brief facts: 4. Claimant Kulbir Singh was coming from Palampur to Dharamshala on a scooter, was hit by the offending vehicle, i.e. Santro Car bearing registration No. UP-80AK-0545, at about 1.45 p.m. at Thakurdwara, which was being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which he sustained multiple injuries. He was taken to hospital at Dharamshala, was referred to DMC Ludhiana and remained admitted from 7.1.2005 till 18.1.2005. 5. The claimant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the memo of claim petition. 6. Respondents contested and resisted the claim petition. Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed joint reply and respondent No. 3 filed separate reply. 7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: “(i) Whether the respondent No. 1 was driving the offending vehicle No. UP-80AD-0545 owned by respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner on 6.1.2005 on the read and struck this car with scooter of the petitioner at Thakurdwara, thereby causing injuries to him as alleged? OPP. (ii) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP. (iii) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR 1 to 3. (iv) Whether the respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the day of accident as alleged? if so its effect.OPR3 (v) Whether the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 1 in contravention of terms and condition of the insurance police as alleged? OPR3. (vi) Relief.” 8. OPR 1 to 3. (iv) Whether the respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the day of accident as alleged? if so its effect.OPR3 (v) Whether the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 1 in contravention of terms and condition of the insurance police as alleged? OPR3. (vi) Relief.” 8. The claimant examined as many as five witnesses. Insurer has examined only one witness and driver himself appeared as witness in the witness-box. 9. There is no dispute on Issue No. 1. However, I have gone through the record. The claimants have proved by leading oral as well as documentary evidence that respondent No. 1 has driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and caused the accident due to which claimant sustained injuries. Thus, findings on Issue No. 1 are upheld. 10. Before I deal Issue No.2, I deem it proper to deal Issues No. 3, 4 and 5. Issue No. 3 was not pressed. Even otherwise, this issue came to be rightly decided. Insurer had to prove issues No. 4 and 5 but it has not led any evidence to that effect. Respondent No. 3 has also not led any evidence that owner/insured has committed breach what to speak of willful breach. Therefore, findings on these issues are upheld. 11. Now adverting to issue No. 2, the Tribunal after examining all the aspects have rightly held that the claimant is entitled to Rs. 3,58,545/- with interest as per details given in the impugned award. 12. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation and has made the just and reasonable award. The vehicle was insured and the factum of insurance is not disputed, thus, the insurance company rightly came to be saddled with the liability. 13. At this stage, Mr. Aman Sood stated that this case was the outcome of contributory negligence. 14. I have gone through the evidence. The Insurer has not led any evidence to this effect. There is not even an iota of evidence either oral or documentary on the record which can be made basis for holding that the accident was outcome of contributory negligence. Aman Sood stated that this case was the outcome of contributory negligence. 14. I have gone through the evidence. The Insurer has not led any evidence to this effect. There is not even an iota of evidence either oral or documentary on the record which can be made basis for holding that the accident was outcome of contributory negligence. No doubt, the insurer has raised this issue in the reply but has not led any evidence and even otherwise, claimant has proved by leading evidence that the accident was outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the driver and is covered by Issue No. 1. It is apt to record herein that the respondent-driver has confessed the guilt, which is the conclusive proof of the fact of rashness and negligence of the driver, in terms of section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act. 15. Thus, having said so, no case for interference is made out. The appeal as well as cross objections are dismissed.