JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. The claimant has preferred this appeal against the award dated 8th May, 2009, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (I), Kangra at Dharamshala (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 72-J-II/05, whereby the claim petition came to be dismissed (for short, “the impugned award”), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The claimant has specifically averred in the claim petition that on 06.05.2005, at about 10.50 a.m., at Gharan Petrol Pump, driver, namely, Davinder Kumar, had driven offending vehicle-truck bearing registration No.HP-19-7806, rashly and negligently, hit Maruti Car bearing registration No.HP-37A-1387, being driven by claimant Sanjay Kumar, sustained injuries, was taken to the hospital and was admitted there. He had filed claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-, on the grounds taken in the memo of the claim petition. 3. The respondents resisted and contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in the memo of their objections. 4. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “i). Whether the petitioner has suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of mini-truck No.HP-19-7806 by respondent No. 1? …OPP ii) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? ...OPP iii). Whether the truck in question was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy? …OPR-3 iv). Whether the petition is not maintainable? …OPR-3 v). Whether respondent No. 1 not holding valid and effective Driving Licence, at the time of accident?…OPR-3. vi). Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? ….OPR-3. vii). Relief.” 5. The parties have led evidence. 6. The claimant has not led any evidence to prove that driver, namely Davinder Kumar, had driven the offending vehicle, rashly and negligently at the relevant time. But there is evidence to the effect that FIR was lodged against the claimant and challan was presented before the court of competent jurisdiction against him. 7. The Tribunal has rightly made discussion in paras 11 to 13 of the impugned award. 8. Having said so, the claimant has proved issue No. 1. There is no need to return findings on the other issues. 9. Having said so, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 10. 7. The Tribunal has rightly made discussion in paras 11 to 13 of the impugned award. 8. Having said so, the claimant has proved issue No. 1. There is no need to return findings on the other issues. 9. Having said so, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 10. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on record.