JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment and award, dated 29th September, 2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, H.P. (for short “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No. 37 of 2006, titled as Ravinder Kumar versus Subhash Chand and others, whereby compensation to the tune of 1,43,948/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claiman-tinjured and the insurer was saddled with liability (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The claimant-injured, owner-insured and driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award of any count, thus, 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 the appeal. 4. In order to determine this appeal, it is necessary to give a brief resume of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the appeal in hand. 5. The claimant-injured invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by the medium of claim petition for grant of compensation, as per the breakups given in the claim petition, on the ground that he became the victim of a motor vehicular accident, which was caused by the driver, namely Soni Kumar, while driving bus, bearing registration No. HP22 A7377, rashly and negligently on 30th June, 2005, at about 2.30 P.M., at place Kot, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, in which he sustained injuries. 6. The claim petition was resisted by the owner-insured and the insurer of the offending vehicle on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. The driver of the offending vehicle chose not to appear before the Tribunal and exparte proceedings were drawn against him. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 7th November, 2008:- “1. Whether the petitioner has suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. HP22 A7377 by Soni Kumar, respondent No. 2, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner/claimant is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPRs 4. OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner/claimant is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPRs 4. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question at the time of accident? OPR3 5. Whether the vehicle was being driven without any valid route permit and registration certificate? OPR3 6. Relief.” 8. Parties have led evidence. Issue No. 1: 9. The claimant-injured has led evidence and proved that the driver, namely Shri Soni Kumar, had driven the offending vehicle, i.e. bus, bearing registration No. HP22 A7377, rashly and negligently on 30th June, 2005, at about 2.30 P.M., at place Kot and caused the accident, in which he sustained injuries. No evidence to this effect has been led in rebuttal. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly made discussions in paras 14 to 30 of the impugned award. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. 10. Before dealing with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to determine issues No. 3 to 5. Issue No. 3: 11. It was for the respondents in the claim petition to lead evidence and prove that the claim petition was not maintainable, have not led any evidence to this effect, thus, have failed to discharge the onus. 12. However, I have gone through the record. I wonder how this issue came to be framed by the Tribunal for the reason that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has gone through a sea change in the year 1994 and in terms of Sections 158(6) and 166(4) of the MV Act, even a police report can be treated as a claim petition by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 are upheld. Issue No. 4: 13. It was for the appellant-insurer to plead and prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time. The Tribunal has rightly made the discussions in paras 32 and 33 of the impugned award, need no interference. 14. Issue No. 4: 13. It was for the appellant-insurer to plead and prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time. The Tribunal has rightly made the discussions in paras 32 and 33 of the impugned award, need no interference. 14. However, I have gone through the record and am of the considered view that the appellant-insurer has failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant point of time. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 4 are upheld. Issue No. 5: 15. It was for the appellant-insurer to plead and prove that the offending vehicle was being driven without any valid route permit and registration certificate, has not led any evidence to this effect, thus, has failed to discharge the onus. Even otherwise, the route permit and registration certificate of the offending vehicle are on the record as Ext. RW1/D and Ext. RW1/ C, respectively. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly decided issue No. 5, is, accordingly, upheld. Issue No. 2: 16. The claimant-injured, at the relevant point of time, was a student of 9th standard, became victim of the vehicular accident, has suffered and has to suffer throughout his life. He has remained admitted and was under treatment for a period of more than one year, has suffered trauma, pain and sufferings, and must have spent huge amount on his treatment and other medical expenses. A meagre amount of 1,43,948/- has been awarded, cannot be said to be excessive in any way. The Tribunal has rightly made the discussions in paras 39 to 41. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 2 are upheld. 17. Having glance of the above discussions, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 18. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant-injured strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in his bank account. 19. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.