JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 16th October, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Shimla, Camp at Rohru (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. Petition No. 9-R/2 of 2006, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,66,800/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents No. 1 to 5, herein and the insurer-appellant herein was saddled with liability (for short, the “impugned award”). 2. The claimants, insured-owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them. 3. The insurer has questioned the impugned award on two grounds (i) the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and (ii) the owner has committed willful breach by plying the offending vehicle without route permit. Brief Facts: 4. The claimants being victims of the motor vehicular accident, had invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, in terms of the mandate of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short “the Act”, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 11,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. It is averred in the claim petition that driver, namely, Krishan Chand, had driven the vehicle-Jeep bearing registration No. HP-10-1165, rashly and negligently, on 19.07.2004, at about 8.45 p.m., at Samala, Tehsil and Police Station Rohru, caused the accident, hit Rajinder, as a result of which, he sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 6. The respondents contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 7. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether on 19.07.204, at about 8.45 p.m., at Samala the respondent No. 3 was driving Jeep No. HP-10-1165 rashly and negligently and as such caused death of Sh. Rajinder?…OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in the affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? ....OPP 3. Whether the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep No. HP-10-1165 at the time of accident? …OPR 4. Whether the Jeep was being plied without route permit? ….OPR 5. Relief.” 8. If issue No. 1 is proved in the affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? ....OPP 3. Whether the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive Jeep No. HP-10-1165 at the time of accident? …OPR 4. Whether the Jeep was being plied without route permit? ….OPR 5. Relief.” 8. There is no dispute about issues No. 1 & 2. The dispute revolves around issues No. 3 & 4. 9. The claimants have led evidence. Owner-insured and driver have stepped into the witness box and their statements were recorded. The insurer has not led any evidence. Thus, the evidence led by the claimants, owner-insured and driver has remained unrebutted. 10. The onus to prove issues No. 3 & 4 was upon the insurer, which it has failed to do so. Thus, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly decided issues No. 3 & 4 in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. Having said so, no interference is required. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the amount awarded is excessive. 12. The insurer has also not sought permission to contest the case in terms of Section 170 of the Act and has also not led any evidence. Thus, this ground is not available to the appellant. However, the amount awarded is meager, cannot be said to be excessive. 13. Having said so, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 14. The Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees’ account cheque. 15. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the file of the claim petition.