JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. The appellant-owner-insured has questioned the award, dated 31.03.2011, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I) Kangra at Dharamshala (for short "the Tribunal") in M.A.C.T.R.B.T. No. 90-I/II- 2010/2007, titled as Chander Dev versus Sh. Sadhu Singh & others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.4,09,400/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization and costs to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimant and the insurer was directed to satisfy the award at the first instance with right of recovery (for short "the impugned award"). 2. The insurer, the driver and the claimant have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The owner-insured has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in granting right of recovery to the insurer. 4. The ground is tenable for the following reasons. 6. The claimant had invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 7. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents on the grounds taken in their memo of replies. 8. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether Chander Dev suffered injuries on his person as a result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2, on 10.12.2006? …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved to what compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom? …OPP 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner, driver and insurer of car No. PB-08AB-7260 and motor cycle No. HP-38A-7458? …OPR 4. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? ...OPR-3 5. Whether accident is result of rash and negligent driving of car No. PB-08AB- 7260 and driving of motor cycle No. HP-38A-7458? …OPR 6. Relief.” 9. The claimants examined Head Constable, Sushil Kumar (PW-1), Sh. Surinder Singh (PW-2) and Dr. G.D. Gupta (PW-3). Claimant also appeared himself in the witness box as PW-4. On the other hand, insurer has examined Sukhwinder Paul Singh as RW-1 and driver appeared in the witness box as RW-2. Issue No.1. 10. …OPR 6. Relief.” 9. The claimants examined Head Constable, Sushil Kumar (PW-1), Sh. Surinder Singh (PW-2) and Dr. G.D. Gupta (PW-3). Claimant also appeared himself in the witness box as PW-4. On the other hand, insurer has examined Sukhwinder Paul Singh as RW-1 and driver appeared in the witness box as RW-2. Issue No.1. 10. While going through the statement of PW-1, Head Constable Sushil Kumar, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the accident was the outcome of the rash and negligent driving of driver, namely, Charanjeet Singh, in which the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal has decided this issue in favour of the claimant. The findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 have attained finality, thus the same are upheld. 11. Before dealing with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 3 to 5. Issues No.3 to 5. 12. It was also for the insurer to plead and prove that the insured-owner has committed willful breach. The Tribunal in para-17 of the impugned award has discussed that the owner had not obtained Fitness Certificate at the time of accident. The appellant has filed CMP No. 479 of 2011, for taking on record the photostat copies of the Registration Certificate and Fitness Certificate which do disclose that the owner-insured was having all the documents. 13. The insurer has not led any evidence, thus has failed to discharge the onus. 14. Viewed thus, it is held that the insurer has to satisfy the liability. Issue No.2. 15. I have gone through the entire record. The Tribunal has awarded the just and appropriate compensation, is accordingly upheld. 16. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the insured-owner, is awarded as costs in favour of the claimant. 17. The insurer is directed to deposit the award amount along with interest, if not already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from today before the Registry. 18. If the insurer-appellant has deposited the award amount before the Tribunal or the Registry, the same be released in favour of the claimant, strictly in terms of conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees’ account cheque or by depositing the same in his account. 19. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and the appeal is allowed, as indicated above. Pending application stands disposed of. 20. 19. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and the appeal is allowed, as indicated above. Pending application stands disposed of. 20. Send down the record after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.