JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is judgment and award, dated 30.08.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Kangra at Dharamshala, (H.P.) (for short "the Tribunal") in MACT Petition No. 97K/ II/2005, titled as Savita Devi and others versus Shri Raj Kumar and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,03,200/with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the impugned award till its realization was awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer came to be saddled with liability (for short "the impugned award"). 2. The claimants, the ownerinsured and the driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. Appellant insurer has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the risk of the deceased was not covered because he was a gratuitous passenger. Further argued that the driver of the offending vehicle had not driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and the claimants have not proved the said factum. 4. In order to determine this appeal, it is necessary to give flashback of the facts of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the instant appeal. 5. The claimants have invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by the medium of the claim petition for grant of compensation, as per the breakups given in the claim petition. The positive case of the claimants put forth before the Tribunal, as set up in paras X and XXIV of the claim petition, is that deceasedPawan Kumar was travelling with shuttering material, which was loaded by him in the trolley of the tractor, bearing registration No. HP395446, on 02.09.2005, at about 9.30 A.M. from Icchi to Gaggal, which was driven by its driver, namely Shri Raj Kumar, rashly and negligently, as a result of which deceased Pawan Kumar fell down, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 6. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents in the claim petition on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 7. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: "1. Whether on 02.09.2005 the respondent No. 1 was driving tractor No. HP395446 rashly and negligently as a result of which deceased Pawan Kumar fell down from the tractor and sustained injuries and died? OPP 2. 7. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: "1. Whether on 02.09.2005 the respondent No. 1 was driving tractor No. HP395446 rashly and negligently as a result of which deceased Pawan Kumar fell down from the tractor and sustained injuries and died? OPP 2. If Issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioners re entitled for compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR2 Whether the vehicle in question was not insured with respondent No. 2, as alleged? OPR2 5. Whether deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger i the tractor, as alleged, if so, its effect? OPR2 6. Whether the petition is collusive between petitioners and respondent Nos. 1 and 3, as alleged? OPR2 7. Relief." 8. Parties have led evidence. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, has awarded compensation in terms of the impugned award. Issue No. 1: 9. There is ample evidence on the file led by the claimants read with the copy of FIR No. 321/2005, Ext. PW2/ A, which do disclose that the driver of the offending vehicle had driven the same rashly and negligently and caused the accident on 02.09.2005, as a result of which deceased Pawan Kumar fell down, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal has rightly made discussions in para 7 to 9 of the impugned award. The driver and ownerinsured of the offending vehicle has not questioned the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1, then how can it lie in the mouth of the appellantinsurer that the driver of the offending vehicle had not driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently. Having said so, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. 10. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to determine issues No. 3 to 6. Issue No. 5: 11. The appellant insurer has led evidence. The offending vehicle was a goods carrier, was insured and in terms of the insurance policy, Ext. RW3/A and risk of 2+1' was covered. Only one claim petition was the outcome of the accident, thus, it cannot be said that the risk of the deceased was not covered in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 12. The offending vehicle was a goods carrier, was insured and in terms of the insurance policy, Ext. RW3/A and risk of 2+1' was covered. Only one claim petition was the outcome of the accident, thus, it cannot be said that the risk of the deceased was not covered in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 12. It was for the appellant insurer to plead and prove that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. 13. The ownerinsured and the driver of the offending vehicle have admitted in their reply that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle with shuttering material, thus, was not a gratuitous passenger, and his risk was covered. Having said so, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 5 are upheld. Issue No. 3: 14. It was for the appellantinsurer to plead and prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence and the ownerinsured has committed a willful breach, has not been pressed into service before this Court or before the Tribunal. However, I have gone through the evidence. The appellant insurer has not pleaded and proved that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence, rather, was having a valid and effective driving licence, copy of which is on the file as Ext. RW1/A. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 are upheld. Issue No. 4: 15. The factum of insurance is admitted and proved. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 4 are also upheld. Issue No. 6: 16. It was for the appellantinsurer to plead and prove that there is collusion between the claimants and the owner insured and driver, has not led evidence to this effect. Accordingly, the findings on issue No. 6 are also upheld. Issue No. 2: 17. The amount awarded is very meager and cannot be said to be excessive in any way. But, the claimants have not questioned the same, is reluctantly upheld. 18. Having glance of the above discussions, the appeal merits to be dismissed and the impugned award is to be upheld. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 19. The amount awarded is very meager and cannot be said to be excessive in any way. But, the claimants have not questioned the same, is reluctantly upheld. 18. Having glance of the above discussions, the appeal merits to be dismissed and the impugned award is to be upheld. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 19. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award after proper identification. 20. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.