JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 30th November, 2011, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.1,95,000/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till payment, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants, and the insurer was saddled with the liability, (for short, the impugned award). 2. The claimants, the driver and the owner have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the insurer has challenged the impugned award by way of instant appeal, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. The claimants, being the parents of the deceased, invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, the Act), for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.10.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition, on account of the death of Chandan Bhatia. 5. Respondents resisted the claim petition by filing replies. 6. Following issues were framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether deceased Chandan Bhatia died due to rash and negligent driving of tractor by respondent No.1 on 20.4.2009 at about 11.05 P.M. at Chowki Maniar, Tehsil Bangana, District Una, bearing registrar No.HP-20C-4897? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 1&2 4. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? OPR-3 5. Whether the tractor bearing registration HP-20C-4897 was being used without route permit fitness certificate and in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR-3 6. Relief.” 7. Claimants examined four witnesses, i.e. PW-1 Dr. Rajiv Angra, PW-2 HC Malkiat Singh, PW-3 Charan Dass and claimant Shimli Devi stepped into the witness box as PW-4. Respondents have not examined any witness, except respondent No.2, who stepped into the witness box as RW-1. 8. The Tribunal, after examining the pleadings and the evidence, held that the accident was the outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver. Respondents have not examined any witness, except respondent No.2, who stepped into the witness box as RW-1. 8. The Tribunal, after examining the pleadings and the evidence, held that the accident was the outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver. There is no dispute about the said findings. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.1 are upheld. 9. Before issue No.2 is dealt with, I deem it proper to deal with issues No.3 to 5. Onus to prove the said issues was on the insurer, has not led any evidence. The Tribunal has rightly decided issues No.3 to 5 and saddled the insurer with the liability. 10. It is worthwhile to mention here that the appellant, during the pendency of the instant appeal, has moved application, being CMP No.104 of 2012, under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for placing on record copy of the verification report submitted by the Investigator alongwith the licence verification report, is misconceived and is against the purpose of granting compensation under the Act. Hence, dismissed. 11. As far as issue No.2 is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation and made the award. 12. Having said so, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant/insurer and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the impugned award is upheld.