Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. By the medium of this appeal, the appellant-insurer has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court as per the mandate of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the award, dated 4th March, 2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No. 82 of 2006, whereby compensation to the tune of ` 5,93,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-respondent No. 1 herein and the appellant-insurer came to be saddled with liability (for short, the “impugned award”), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 3. The claimant, insured-owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them. 4. The appellant-insurer has questioned the impugned award on the grounds that the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling it with liability and the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. 5. The appellant-insurer has not questioned the findings returned by the Tribunal on the other issues. 6. The parties led evidence. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimant has proved that on 24.04.2005, at about 10.15 a.m., at Village Sawahal on Hamirpur-Sujanpur highway, driver, namely, Hari Om had driven the offending vehicle i.e. truck bearing registration No. HP-12-A-5843, rashly and negligently and caused the accident in which claimant Satish Kumar sustained injuries. 7. I have gone through the evidence and the documents on the record. Issue No. 1. 8. The findings recorded on issue No. 1 are not in dispute. Thus, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on this issue are upheld. 9. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 3 & 4. 10. The insurer has not led any evidence to prove how the claim petition was bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 4 are upheld. Issue No. 3. 11. The driver was having a valid and effective driving licence (Ext. 10. The insurer has not led any evidence to prove how the claim petition was bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 4 are upheld. Issue No. 3. 11. The driver was having a valid and effective driving licence (Ext. RW-1/A) to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time. 12. Neither the learned Counsel for the appellant-insurer has been able to establish or indicate that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident nor the insurer has led any evidence to substantiate the said plea. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 are upheld. 13. The insurer has also not been able to prove that the driver had committed any breach. Accordingly, it is held that the insurer has to satisfy the award. Issue No. 2. 14. The injured was 43 years of age at the time of accident. He has undergone pain and sufferings, has to undergo the said in future also. The said accident has shattered his physical frame. The Tribunal has rightly made discussions from paras 16 to 21 of the impugned award and rightly came to the conclusion. Having said so, the amount awarded is meager, cannot be said to excessive, in any way. 15. There is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. 16. 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. 17. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the file of the claim petition.