JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 11th November, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.23 of 2007, titled Sudhanshu vs. Kamlesh Kumari and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.1,29,738/, alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, came to be granted in favour of the claimant, and the owner and the driver came to be saddled with the liability, (for short, the impugned award). 2. The driver, namely, Rajesh Kumar and the insurer have not questioned the impugned award, thus the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the owner/insured has questioned the impugned award by the medium of the instant appeal, on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling the owner with the liability, inasmuch as the offending vehicle was being driven by Kalwant Singh at the relevant point of time and not by Rajesh Kumar, as has been held by the Tribunal. 4. The claimant has also preferred cross objections No.360 of 2009 for enhancement of compensation. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 6. It has been specifically pleaded by the claimant that the offending vehicle was being plied, at the time of accident, by original respondent No.2 i.e. Rajesh Kumar. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence led by the parties, held that original respondent No.2 Rajesh Kumar had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently at the relevant point of time, who was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. The said Rajesh Kumar has not questioned the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 7. Another aspect which cannot be lost sight off is that the Claim Petition was contested by the owner (present appellant) and the driver Rajesh Kumar jointly before the Tribunal, reply to the Claim Petition was also filed jointly and Mr.R.C. Sharma, Advocate, appeared for both of them before the Tribunal. After the passing of the impugned award, as has been noticed supra, the said Rajesh Kumar has chosen not to contest the findings recorded by the Tribunal that he had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently on the appointed day and had caused the accident. After the passing of the impugned award, as has been noticed supra, the said Rajesh Kumar has chosen not to contest the findings recorded by the Tribunal that he had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently on the appointed day and had caused the accident. Thus, the findings have attained finality against the driver Rajesh Kumar. 8. However, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant/owner tried to carve out a case by relying upon the statement of RW-1 Kulwant Singh, which is of no help since RW-1 Kulwant Singh has clearly stated that he never went to Haridwar with the vehicle belonging to the appellant. In cross examination also, RW-1 Kulwant Singh had not supported the case of the owner. The appreciation of evidence made by the Tribunal is legally correct and needs no interference. 9. Having said so, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.1 needs to be upheld and the same are upheld accordingly. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. 10. As far as Cross Objections are concerned, the amount of compensation, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be inadequate. Accordingly, the Cross Objections are dismissed.