JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. This appeal is the outcome of an award, dated 6th June, 2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Kangra at Dharamshala, (for short, the Tribunal), in MAC Petition No. 51/2003, titled Munish Kumar vs. Amit Kumar and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.1,59,233/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant Munish Kumar (respondent No.1 herein) and the owner and the driver (appellants herein), came to be saddled with the liability, (for short the impugned award). 2. The insurer and the claimant have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus the same has attained finality in so far as it relates to them. 3. The only question to be determined in this appeal is – Whether the Tribunal has rightly saddled the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle with the liability? 4. In order to prove their case, the parties have led evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after scanning the entire evidence held that original respondent No.1 Amit Kumar (appellant herein) had driven the scooter rashly and negligently. The Tribunal has also categorically recorded that the scooter was not being driven by Rakesh Kumar, as pleaded by the original respondents in the reply filed by them to the Claim Petition. 5. The driver has failed to prove that he was holding a valid and effective driving licence, at the relevant point of time, to drive the offending vehicle. Thus, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.4. 6. It was also for the owner and the driver to plead and prove that the offending vehicle was insured at the relevant point of time. Admittedly, it was not insured and issue No.5 came to be rightly decided by the Tribunal. 7. I have gone through the findings recorded by the Tribunal and am of the view that the same have been recorded after due appreciation of entire evidence and the pleadings of the parties. 8. It is also apt to place on record herein that said Rakesh Kumar, who has been claimed to have driven the scooter at the relevant point of time, is not a party to the proceedings. 9. 8. It is also apt to place on record herein that said Rakesh Kumar, who has been claimed to have driven the scooter at the relevant point of time, is not a party to the proceedings. 9. Having said so, the Tribunal has not committed any error in fastening the owner and the driver with the liability and by exonerating the insurer. 10. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the impugned award is upheld. 11. The Registry is directed to release the award amount in favour of the claimant.