JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 30.08.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 20/2001-115/2005, titled Shri Sanjay Kumar versus Sh. Harbans Lal & others others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,28,360/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, 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, insured-owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far it relates to them. 3. The appellant-insurer has questioned the impugned award, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. The grounds of attack as taken by the learned Counsel for the appellant-insurer are that no F.I.R. was lodged, accident was outcome of contributory negligence, the claim petition was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and the amount awarded is excessive. 5. All these arguments, though attractive, but are devoid of any force for the following reasons. 6. Claimant-Sanjay Kumar, who was conductor, became the victim of the motor vehicular accident, which was allegedly caused by driver, Jiwan Lal @ Hari Singh, respondent No. 2 in the claim petition, while driving truck bearing registration No. HP-34-0665, rashly and negligently, on 15.09.1999, at about 4.00 p.m., near Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab and in the process, conductor-claimant sustained injuries on his shoulder, was taken to hospital at Dasuya and was admitted there for two days. Thereafter, he was referred to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla and was admitted there from 18.09.1999 to 23.10.1999, constraining him to file the claim petition before the Tribunal, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 7. Alongwith this appeal, respondent No. 1- claimant has filed Cross Objection No. 71 of 2010, for enhancement of the compensation. 8. The respondents in the claim petition contested the same on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 9. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. 7. Alongwith this appeal, respondent No. 1- claimant has filed Cross Objection No. 71 of 2010, for enhancement of the compensation. 8. The respondents in the claim petition contested the same on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 9. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident took place on 15.09.1999 near Dasuya District Hoshiarpur (Pb.) due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Truck No. HP-34-0665 and the petitioner sustained injuries? …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation as claimed, to what extent and from whom? …OPP 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder & mis-joinder of necessary parties? …OPR-1 4. Whether the respondent No. 2 alleged to have been driving the vehicle at the time of the accident was not having valid and effective driving licence, if so, its effect? ….OPR-3. 5. Whether the respondent No. 3 is not liable to indemnify the claim on account of breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy? …OPR-3 6. Relief.” Issue No.1 10. The parties have led evidence. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimant has proved that driver, namely, Jiwan Lal alias Hari Singh, has caused the accident, while driving the offending vehicle, i.e. Truck bearing registration No. HP-34-0665, rashly and negligently, on 15.09.1999, at about 4.00 p.m., near Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab. The said findings have not been questioned by the driver. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 are upheld. 11. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 3 to 5. Issue No. 3 12. It was for the insured-owner to discharge the onus, has neither led any evidence nor questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, the appellant-insurer cannot question the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 3. While going through the impugned award, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the claim petition was not bad for nonjoinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. 13. Thus, the appellant-insurer cannot question the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 3. While going through the impugned award, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the claim petition was not bad for nonjoinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. 13. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has gone a sea change and sub section (6) to Section 158 and sub section (4) to Section 166 of the Act have been added, whereby the Claims Tribunal can treat report of accident forwarded to it under Section 158(6) of the Act as an application for compensation. 14. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly decided issue No.3 and accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are upheld. Issues No. 4 & 5. 15. It was for the insurer to prove these issues, have not led any evidence. The factum of insurance is not in dispute. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 4 & 5 are upheld. Issue No. 2. 16. The claimant was admitted in the hospital for more than one month, has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 45%, which has shattered his physical frame. The Tribunal has given details relating to assessment of the compensation right from paras 23 to 28 of the impugned award, rightly made the discussion and assessed the just and appropriate compensation, is legally correct, needs no interference. 17. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 2 are upheld. 18. Now, coming to the cross-objection filed by the claimant, appear to have been filed on flimsy grounds, merits to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal and cross objection are dismissed. 20. The Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees’ account cheque or to deposit in his account. 21. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the file of the claim petition.