JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 5th April, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Kangra at Dharamshala (for short, “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. P. No.14-B/11-2006, titled Puran Chand vs. Mehar Chand & others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.46,500/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7½% per annum, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and the insurer was saddled with the liability, (for short the “impugned award”). 2. The owner, the driver and the claimant have not questioned the impugned award on any count. Thus, the same has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. Only the insurer has questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence and thus, the owner has committed willful breach. 5. It is apt to reproduce the issues framed by the Tribunal herein: “1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor No.HP-68-0634 by respondent No.2? OPP 2. Whether the accident took place due to contributory negligence of petitioner while driving vehicle No.DL-1YA-0476 and respondent No.2 driver of tractor No.HP-68-0634? OPR-3 3. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled and from whom? OP parties. 4. Whether respondent No.2 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3. 5. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 1& 2 6. Whether the tractor in question was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, at the time of accident? OPR-3. 7. Relief.” 6. Issues No.4 and 6 deal with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. It was for the insurer to lead evidence and prove the said issues. I have gone through the impugned award and am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly made the discussion in paragraphs 13 and 14 thereof and accordingly decided both the issues correctly. Even the insurer has not led any evidence to prove that the owner has committed the willful breach in terms of the mandate of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Even the insurer has not led any evidence to prove that the owner has committed the willful breach in terms of the mandate of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh & others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1531 and Pepsu Road Transport Corporation versus National Insurance Company, reported in (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 217. 7. Having said so, no interference is required. Hence the appeal is dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. The Registry is directed to release the award amount in favour of the claimant, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award, after proper identification. 8. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on the Tribunal’s file.