Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 12.5.2006, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Una, in MAC Petition No. 28 of 2001, titled Paramjit versus Balwinder Kumar and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.5,60,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimants, with direction to the insurer to satisfy the same with right of recovery, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. Claimants, owner, drivers and insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus it has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. Kamal Bhardwaj, one of the owners of Jeep No.HP-35-0803 has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has decided issues No. 4 and 5 in favour of the owner and drivers and against the insurer but has fallen in an error in granting right of recovery to the insurer. 4. The findings returned on other issues are not in dispute and have attained finality. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is whether the Tribunal has rightly granted the right of recovery? 5. Admittedly, Maruti Van is a light motor vehicle. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly decided issues No. 4 and 5 which fact has not been questioned by the insurer and has failed to discharge the onus. Thus, the same has attained finality. 6. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the owner has committed willful breach. He failed to do so. Even the findings recorded on issues No. 4 and 5 have not been questioned. Thus, the Tribunal was not within its power to grant right of recovery. 7. The learned counsel for the insurer Mr. Ratish Sharma, Advocate stated that the driving licence was not valid. He was asked to reply whether he has questioned the findings recorded, was not able to do so. However, I have gone through the entire record. It appears that both the driving licenses were valid and cannot in any way be said to be ineffective, as rightly discussed by the learned Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal has fallen in an error in granting right of recovery. 8. Having said so, the impugned award is modified by providing that the insurer is saddled with the liability and has to satisfy the award. 9. Thus, the Tribunal has fallen in an error in granting right of recovery. 8. Having said so, the impugned award is modified by providing that the insurer is saddled with the liability and has to satisfy the award. 9. Accordingly, impugned award is set aside so far it relates to right of recovery and the appeal is allowed. 10. The Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimants, strictly, in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payee’s cheque account. 11. Send down the record, forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.