Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice, (Oral). Subject matter of this appeal is the judgment and award dated 25.10.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi, for short “the Tribunal” in Claim Petition No. 29 of 2006, titled Smt. Jamna Devi and others versus Tek Chand and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.4,17,500/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and insurer was saddled with liability, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. Claimants, driver and owner/insured have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus it has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The insurer has questioned the impugned award on three counts, i.e., (i) that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence, (ii), the insured/owner has committed willful breach, (iii), the appellant/insurer moved application under Order 11 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short “the Code” read with Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short “the Act” was rejected illegally. 4. The claimants had invoked the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi, for the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.4,45,200/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 5. The claim petition was resisted and contested by the respondents and following issues came to be framed. (i) Whether the death of Khem Singh took place while traveling in vehicle Maruti car bearing No. HP-37-6667 which met with an accident on 22.1.2006 at about 9 p.m. at place Gutkar, NH-21, as alleged? OPP (ii) If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled ? OPP (iii) Whether the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as alleged? OPR2 (iv) Whether the deceased was passenger and is not covered under the moor vehicle Act and insurance policy as alleged? OPR (v) Relief. 6. There is no dispute with respect to issue No. 1, thus, the findings returned on issue No. 1 are upheld. 7. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 3 and 4 which revolve around the issues raised by the appellant/insurer, supra. OPR (v) Relief. 6. There is no dispute with respect to issue No. 1, thus, the findings returned on issue No. 1 are upheld. 7. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 3 and 4 which revolve around the issues raised by the appellant/insurer, supra. The insurer-appellant had to discharge the onus to prove that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle, has not made any whisper to summon the officer who has granted the driving licence. Having said so, the insurer-appellant has failed to discharge the onus and prove that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence. Accordingly findings on issue No. 3 are upheld. 8. Issue No. 4. It was for the insurer to prove this issue, has failed to lead any evidence. Accordingly, findings returned on this issue are also upheld. 9. The learned counsel or the appellant vehemently argued that he had moved an application under Order 11 Rule 14 of the Code which came to be rejected vide order dated 11.6.2007. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of any force for the following reasons. 10. The mandate of Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for the grant of compensation to the victim without succumbing to the niceties and technicalities of procedure. It is beaten law of the land that technicalities or procedural wrangles and tangles have no role to play. 11. My this view is fortified by the judgment delivered by the apex court in Dulcina Fernandes and others vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and another, reported in (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 646, N.K.V. Bros. (P.) Ltd. versus M. Karumai Ammal and others etc., reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1354 and Oriental Insurance Co. versus Mst. Zarifa and others, reported in AIR 1995 Jammu and Kashmir 81. 12. Section 169 of the Act provides as to which procedure is applicable to the claim petition. The mandate of this Section is that all the provisions of the Code are not applicable. Some of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have been made applicable in terms of the provisions of the Rules framed by the Central Government as well as State Government. The mandate of this Section is that all the provisions of the Code are not applicable. Some of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have been made applicable in terms of the provisions of the Rules framed by the Central Government as well as State Government. The State of Himachal Pradesh has also framed the Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1999 (for short "the Rules") in terms of Sections 169 and 176 (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and only some of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have been made applicable. 13. It is apt to reproduce Rule 232 of the said Rules herein: "232. The Code of Civil Procedure to apply in certain cases:- The following provisions of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall so far as may be, apply to proceedings before the Claims Tribunal, namely, Order V, Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 30; Order IX; Order XIII; Rule 3 to 10; Order XVI, Rules 2 to 21; Order XVII; Order XXI and Order XXIII, Rules 1 to 3." 14. Thus, Order 11 Rule 14 of the Code is not applicable. The application was to be dismissed in liminie and was rightly dismissed by the Tribunal. 15. Having said so, no interference is called for. The appeal is dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. 16. The insurer is directed to deposit the amount, if not already deposited, within six weeks from today in the Registry. On deposit, the entire amount be released in favour of the claimants, through payees’ cheque account. 17. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.