JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is the judgment and award, dated 04.09.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh (for short "the Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 41 of 2001, titled as Shri Udham Singh and another versus Sh. Pawan Kumar and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,35,000/ with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer was saddled with liability (for short "the impugned award"). 2. The claimants, the owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, the same 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. Learned proxy counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-insurer argued that the vehicle was not in the good condition and fitness certificate was not issued in favour of the owner-insured of the offending vehicle. 5. It is worthwhile to record herein that neither such ground has been taken before the Tribunal nor any such issue has been framed by the Tribunal. However, the only ground taken before the Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same and the Tribunal has framed the issue. 6. It was for the insurer to prove that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence, has not led any evidence, thus, has failed to prove the same. Even otherwise, the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle is on the record as Ext. R2, the perusal of which does disclose that the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence. This was the only ground taken before the Tribunal. 7. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the owner-insured of the offending vehicle has committed any willful breach. No such ground has been taken. Moreover, the insurer has neither pleaded nor proved the same. 8. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with liability. The impugned award is well reasoned, needs no interference. 9. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the owner-insured of the offending vehicle has committed any willful breach. No such ground has been taken. Moreover, the insurer has neither pleaded nor proved the same. 8. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with liability. The impugned award is well reasoned, needs no interference. 9. Having glance of the above discussions, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 10. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award after proper identification. 11. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.