JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 28th April, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Shimla, H.P., (for short, “the Tribunal”), in MAC Petition RBT No.156-S/2 of 2005/2000, titled Het Ram vs. Rajesh Kumar Kapil and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.47,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and the insurer was saddled with the liability, (for short the “impugned award”). 2. The claimant, the owner and the driver have not questioned the impugned award on any count. Thus, the same has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the insurer has questioned the impugned award by the medium of the instant appeal, on the ground taken in the memo of appeal. Brief facts: 4. The claimant became victim of vehicular accident on 1st May, 1998, while traveling in the Tempo bearing No. HP-07-3785, being driven by its driver namely, Roop Chand rashly and negligently. The said vehicle met with an accident, as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries, was taken to Civil Hospital, Karsog, fromwhere he was referred to IGMC, Shimla, where he remained admitted from 1st May, 1998 to 7th May, 1998. Thus, the claimant filed the claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.1.00 lac, as per the break-ups given in the Claim Petition. 5. Respondents resisted the claim petition and following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1.Whether petitioner has suffered injury on his person as a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle HP-07-3785? OPP 2. To what compensation petitioner is entitled? OPP 3. Whether vehicle was being driven in the breach of insurance policy and Motor Vehicle Act? OPR 4. Whether the driver had no valid and effective driving licence? OPR 5. Whether petitioner was unauthorized passenger? OPR 6. Relief.” 6. There is no dispute about the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.1. Accordingly, the said findings are upheld. 7. Before issue No.2 is dealt with, I deem it proper to deal with issues No.3, 4 and 5 at the first place. 8. OPR 5. Whether petitioner was unauthorized passenger? OPR 6. Relief.” 6. There is no dispute about the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.1. Accordingly, the said findings are upheld. 7. Before issue No.2 is dealt with, I deem it proper to deal with issues No.3, 4 and 5 at the first place. 8. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the insured had committed willful breach, has not led any evidence to that effect and has failed to prove that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No.3 and 4 are upheld. 9. It has been recorded by the Tribunal that issue No.3 was not pressed by the insurer. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the owner had committed willful breach of the terms and conditions contained in the policy. The Tribunal has discussed all aspects while determining issues No.2 and 5 and awarded a meager compensation. 10. Now coming to issue No.5, the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer argued that the injured was a gratuitous passenger. No such evidence has been led by the insurer to prove that the injured was traveling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger. The Tribunal has rightly made discussion while recording findings on issue No.5. 11. Having said so, no interference is required in the impugned award and the same is upheld. The Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimant strictly in terms of the impugned award, after proper identification. 12. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.