JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award dated 16th July, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. Petition No. 32-S/2 of 2005, whereby and whereunder compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,05,100/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, was awarded in favour of the claimant-respondent No. 1, herein and the insurer-appellant, herein came to be saddled with liability (for short, the “impugned award”). 2. The claimant, owner-insured 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 the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the insurer is not liable to pay the award amount as the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 5. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is – whether the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with liability? The answer is in the affirmative for the following reasons. 6. In order to determine the said issue, it is necessary to give a brief summary of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the instant appeal. 7. On 07.04.2004, the claimant was traveling in vehicle-Maruti Van bearing registration No. HP-01A-0152, from Shimla to Manali on National Highway No. 88, which was being driven by driver, namely, Vinay Kumar, rashly and negligently, and caused the accident, at about 3.30 a.m., near Namhol, in which he sustained injuries, was referred to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, where he remained admitted w.e.f. 07.04.2004 to 12.06.2004, constraining him to file claim petition before the Tribunal, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 8. The respondents contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 9. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal:- “i) Whether the petitioner suffered injuries as a result of rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 2? …OPP ii) In case issue No. 1 is proved to what amount the petitioner is entitled and from which of the respondents? 9. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal:- “i) Whether the petitioner suffered injuries as a result of rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 2? …OPP ii) In case issue No. 1 is proved to what amount the petitioner is entitled and from which of the respondents? …OPP iii) Whether the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the Policy in regard to R.C., fitness and route permit? …OPR-3 iv) Whether the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? ….OPR-3 v) Relief.” 10. The claimant has examined seven witnesses and also appeared in the witness box as PW-5. The owner has also appeared in the witness box as RW-1. The other respondents have not led any evidence. Thus, the evidence led by the claimant has remained unrebutted. Issue No. 1 11. I have gone through the record. The claimant has proved by leading the evidence, oral as well as documentary, that driver, namely, Vinay Kumar had driven the offending vehicle, rashly and negligently, on 07.04.2004, at about 3.30 a.m., near Namhol, in which the claimant sustained injuries. The owner-insured and driver have not questioned the findings returned by the Tribunal on the said issue. The insurer can not question the same. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. Issues No. 3 & 4 12. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 3 & 4. 13. It was for the insurer to discharge onus, has not led any evidence. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly decided issues No. 3 & 4 in favour of the claimant, driver and owner and against the insurer. 14. It is a beaten law of the land that in order to exonerate from liability, the insurer has to prove that the owner of the offending vehicle has committed willful breach in terms of the mandate of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short ‘the Act’ read with the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy. But it has failed to do so. Thus, the insurer was rightly saddled with the liability. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 3 & 4 are upheld. Issue No. 2. 15. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the award amount is excessive. But it has failed to do so. Thus, the insurer was rightly saddled with the liability. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 3 & 4 are upheld. Issue No. 2. 15. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the award amount is excessive. This ground is not available to the insurer for the simple reason that neither it has sought permission under Section 170 of the Act nor it has led any evidence. 16. The Apex Court in case titled as R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 , has laid down guidelines how compensation is to be awarded under various heads in injury cases by making guess work. 17. The Apex Court in case titled as Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & another, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6085 in para-7 of the judgment has held as under:- “7. We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was in so far as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered. In some cases for personal injury, the claim could be in respect of life time's earnings lost because, though he will live, he cannot earn his living. In others, the claim may be made for partial loss of earnings. Each case has to be considered in the light of its own facts and at the end, one must ask whether the sum awarded is a fair and reasonable sum. The conventional basis of assessing compensation in personal injury cases - and that is now recognized mode as to the proper measure of compensation - is taking an appropriate multiplier of an appropriate multiplicand.” 18. The conventional basis of assessing compensation in personal injury cases - and that is now recognized mode as to the proper measure of compensation - is taking an appropriate multiplier of an appropriate multiplicand.” 18. The Apex Court in case titled as Ramchandrappa versus The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2011 AIR 1 SCW 4787 also laid down guidelines for granting compensation in injury cases. It is apt to reproduce paras 8 & 9 of the judgment hereinbelow:- “8. The compensation is usually based upon the loss of the claimant's earnings or earning capacity, or upon the loss of particular faculties or members or use of such members, ordinarily in accordance with a definite schedule. The Courts have time and again observed that the compensation to be awarded is not measured by the nature, location or degree of the injury, but rather by the extent or degree of the incapacity resulting from the injury. The Tribunals are expected to make an award determining the amount of compensation which should appear to be just, fair and proper. 9. The term "disability", as so used, ordinarily means loss or impairment of earning power and has been held not to mean loss of a member of the body. If the physical efficiency because of the injury has substantially impaired or if he is unable to perform the same work with the same ease as before he was injured or is unable to do heavy work which he was able to do previous to his injury, he will be entitled to suitable compensation. Disability benefits are ordinarily graded on the basis of the character of the disability as partial or total, and as temporary or permanent. No definite rule can be established as to what constitutes partial incapacity in cases not covered by a schedule or fixed liabilities, since facts will differ in practically every case.” 19. The Apex Court in case titled as Kavita versus Deepak and others, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 4771 also discussed the entire law and laid down the guidelines how to grant compensation. 20. The Tribunal has discussed all aspects of the case from paras 17 to 29 of the impugned award and awarded compensation, which appears to be reasonable. 21. The Apex Court in case titled as Kavita versus Deepak and others, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 4771 also discussed the entire law and laid down the guidelines how to grant compensation. 20. The Tribunal has discussed all aspects of the case from paras 17 to 29 of the impugned award and awarded compensation, which appears to be reasonable. 21. The award amount appears to be meager in view of the fact that the claimant has suffered disability to the extent of 45% and has spent a huge amount on his treatment, as discussed above, but he has not questioned the adequacy of compensation. 22. The Registry is directed to release the compensation amount in favour of the claimant, strictly as per the terms and conditions, contained in the impugned award. 23. Viewed thus, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 24. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the file of the claim petition.