JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the award, dated 11th April, 2008, made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 57 of 2005, titled as Shri Holi Ram versus New Prem Bus Service & others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.7,48,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant, namely, Holi Ram-respondent No. 1, herein and the insurers of both the offending vehicles, i.,e. appellant and respondent No. 2 herein, were saddled with liability (for short, the “impugned award”). 2. The claimant, drivers, owners and one of the Insurance Companies have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them. 3. The insurer of the offending car-Royal Sundran Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. has challenged the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling it with the liability. 4. Claimant, namely, Holi Ram has invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, in terms of the mandate of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short “the Act”, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.8,80,000/-, as per the breakups given in the claim petition, on the ground that drivers, namely, Desh Raj and Umesh Dhingra had driven the offending vehicles-Bus bearing registration No. HP-39-4665 and Car bearing registration No. DL-3CW-4954, respectively, rashly and negligently, on 3.10.20104, at about 9.30 a.m., at village Talgahar near Joginder Nagar, caused the accident, in which he sustained injuries and suffered permanently disabled to the extent of 100%. 5. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents on the grounds taken in their memo of objection. 6. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the respondent No. 2 was driving the bus bearing No. HP-39-4665 on 3.10.2004 at 9.30 a.m. at village Talgahar and respondent No. 4 was also driving the car bearing No. DL-3CW-4954 in rash and negligent manner resulting in injuries to the petitioner Holi Ram as alleged? ……OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? …OPP 3. ……OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? …OPP 3. Whether the respondent No. 4 was not holding a valid and effective D/L and the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as alleged? ….OPR(5) 4. Whether the respondent No. 2 was also not holding valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? …..OPR(3) 5. Relief.” 7. The claimant has examined Narender Kumar (PW-2), Chandermani (PW-3), Rajesh Pal (PW-4), Budhi Singh (PW-5) and Dr. Manoj Kumar Thakur (PW-6). Claimant also appeared in the witness box as PW-1. The insurers of both the offending vehicles have not led any evidence. However, drivers of the offending vehicles, i.e. Umesh Dhingra and Desh Raj have appeared in the witness box as RW-1 and RW-2, respectively. Even, A.S.I., Desh Raj, who conducted the investigation, also appeared in the witness box as RW-3. The parties also tendered in evidence the documents, mention of which has been given in the List of Exhibits, attached with the impugned award. 8. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, came to the conclusion that the accident was outcome of the contributory negligence of the drivers of the offending vehicles, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.7,48,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour the claimant from the date of the claim petition till its realization and saddled respondents No. 3 & 5 in the claim petitions, i.e. insurers of the offending vehicles, namely, National Insurance Company Ltd. and Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, with the liability in equal shares. 9. I have gone through the findings recorded by the Tribunal and the entire record and am of the considered view that the accident was outcome of the contributory negligence. 10. While going through the statement of the Investigating Officer, RW-3, A.S.I., Desj Raj, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the accident was outcome of the contributory negligence. 11. It was for the appellant-insurer, i.e. Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company to plead and prove that the accident was not outcome of the contributory negligence and car bearing registration No. DL-3CW-4954 was not involved in the accident. 11. It was for the appellant-insurer, i.e. Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company to plead and prove that the accident was not outcome of the contributory negligence and car bearing registration No. DL-3CW-4954 was not involved in the accident. Even, the driver of the offending car has not questioned the impugned award. How can it lie in the mouth of the appellant that the accident was not outcome of the contributory negligence. 12. The factum of insurance is not in dispute. 13. The claimant has not questioned the adequacy of compensation. 14. Having said so, the appeal merits dismissal. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 15. 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. 16. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on the Tribunal’s file.