JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 27th September, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., (for short, “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. No.28 of 2009, titled Master Pritiyush Kant vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., whereby a sum of Rs.8,11,041/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit came to be awarded as compensation in favour of the claimant and the insurer was saddled with the liability (for short the “impugned award”). 2. The claimant and the owner-insured have not questioned the impugned award on any count. Thus, the same has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-insurer has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the offending vehicle, at the time of accident, was being driven in contravention to the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy and the owner had committed willful breach. Second ground urged by the appellant was that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. These grounds are not tenable for the following reasons. 4. It was averred that the claimant, on 11th August, 2008, was traveling in car bearing No.PB-02K-0078, and at about 5.30 a.m. when the said car reached at Nehar Nullah near Kutt Tehsil Bhattiyat, District Chamba, H.P., it met with an accident. The claimant sustained injuries and suffered 75% disability, constraining him to file the claim petition through his grandmother for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.17,44,066/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 5. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents and the following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 11.8.2008 at about 5.30 AM at Nehar Nullah near Kutt Tehsil Bhattiyat, Distt. Chamba due to rash and negligent driving of driver of vehicle No.PB-02K-0078? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioner is entitled for the grant of compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? OPP 3. Whether the driver o the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-1 4. OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioner is entitled for the grant of compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? OPP 3. Whether the driver o the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-1 4. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle in contravention of terms and condition of insurance policy? OPR-1 5. Whether the injured was unauthorized occupant in the vehicle as alleged? OPR-1 6. Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with respondent No.2 as alleged, if so, its effect? OPR-1 7. Relief.” 6. In order to prove his case, the claimant examined Dr. Rakesh Verma (PW-1), HC Neeraj Kumar (PW-2), Kaku Ram (PW-3), and Smt. Shanta, (PW-4 i.e. grand mother through whom the claim petition was filed). On the other hand, the respondents have not led any evidence. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 8. The claimant has proved on record that the accident, in which the claimant sustained injuries, had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle which was being driven by its driver, namely, Karam Chand. As recorded supra, the respondents have not led any evidence to prove to the contrary. Moreover, there is sufficient material on the record of the file to hold that the accident was the outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver Karam Chand. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.1 are upheld. 9. Before dealing with issue No.2, I deem it proper to take up other issues at the first instance. 10. As far as issues No.3 to 6 are concerned, the onus to prove these issues was upon the insurer, has not led any evidence, therefore, has failed to discharge the onus cast on it. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on these issues are upheld. 11. Coming to issue No.2, the Tribunal, while assessing the amount of compensation, has discussed all aspects in paragraphs 12 to 19 as to how compensation is to be granted in an injury case. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on these issues are upheld. 11. Coming to issue No.2, the Tribunal, while assessing the amount of compensation, has discussed all aspects in paragraphs 12 to 19 as to how compensation is to be granted in an injury case. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 , Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & another, 2010 AIR SCW 6085, Ramchandrappa versus The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, 2011 AIR SCW 4787 and Kavita versus Deepak and others, 2012 AIR SCW 4771. On the contrary, it appears that the amount awarded is meager. However, the claimant has not questioned the impugned award. Accordingly, the compensation awarded is reluctantly upheld. 12. Having said so, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.