JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is judgment and award, dated 24th February, 2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur (H.P.) (for short "the Tribunal") in MAC Petition No. 6 of 2008, titled as Parveen Kumar versus Baldev Singh and others, whereby compensation to the tune of 4,10,185/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-injured and against the insurer (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The claimant-injured, the owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. 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 flashback of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the instant appeal. 5. Claimant-injured Parveen Kumar who was 18 years' of age at the time of the accident, became the victim of the motor vehicular accident, which was caused by driver, namely, Kishan Chand, while driving Tractor, bearing registration No. HP-67-1054, rashly and negligently, on 17th March, 2006, at about 12.30 P.M. at place Kunana, District Hamipur, in which the claimant-injured sustained multiple injuries, was shifted to Regional Hosptal, Hamirpur, wherefrom he was referred to Government Hospital, Dharamshala and remained admitted there for three months, has become permanently disabled due to the said injuries and has claimed compensation to the tune of five lacs, as per the breakups given in the claim petition. 6. The respondents in the claim petition resisted the same on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 7. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 16th April, 2009: “1. Whether the respondent No. 2 Kishan Chand had driven tractor bearing No. HP-67-1054 on the public high way rashly and negligently, as a result of which it hit the scooter and petitioner Parveen Kumar suffered permanent disablement, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation amount of permanent disability, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR3 4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPR3 5. OPP 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation amount of permanent disability, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR3 4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPR3 5. Whether the petition is not maintainable as neither the petitioner nor the owner, i.e. Respondent No. 1 have supplied the particulars of vehicle? OPR3 6. Relief.” 8. The claimant-injured has examined Dr. Ramesh Chauhan as PW1, Shri Ashwani Kumar as PW3, Dr. Yogesh Diwan as PW4 and himself appeared in the witness box as PW2. The insurer has examined Shri Rattan Lal, Administrative Officer, United India Insurance Company as RW1 and Shri Mahinder Singh, Senior Assistant, RTO Office, Hamipur as RW3. The owner-insured himself has appeared in the witness box as RW2. Issue No. 1: 9. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimant-injured has proved that the driver of the offending vehicle had driven the same rashly and negligently at the relevant point of time and caused the accident, in which the claimant-injured sustained injuries. Even otherwise, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are not in dispute. 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 6. Issue No. 3: 11. It was for the appellant-insurer to plead and prove that the claim petition was not maintainable, has not led any evidence to that effect, thus, has failed to discharge the onus. Even otherwise, it is not understandable as to how the claim petition was not maintainable. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has gone through a sea change and even the report of the police can be treated as a claim petition. It is admitted that the claimant-injured became the victim of the vehicular accident, which was caused by the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 are upheld. Issue No. 4: 12. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer was not able to show as to how the claim petition was suffering from non-joinder of necessary parties. The Tribunal has rightly recorded the findings in para 19 of the impugned award. Therefore, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 are upheld. Issue No. 4: 12. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer was not able to show as to how the claim petition was suffering from non-joinder of necessary parties. The Tribunal has rightly recorded the findings in para 19 of the impugned award. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 4 are also upheld. Issue No. 5: 13. The claimant-injured has pleaded that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant-insurer. The factum of insurance of the offending vehicle is also not in dispute. The Tribunal has rightly made discussion in paras 14 to 17 of the impugned award and saddled the appellant-insurer with liability. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 5 are also upheld. Issue No. 2: 14. The appellant-insurer has not questioned the adequacy of the compensation. Even otherwise, the insurer cannot question the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 15. The factum of insurance is admitted and the appellant-insurer has failed to plead and prove that the owner-insured of the offending vehicle had committed any willful breach in terms of the mandate of Sections 147 to 149 of the MV Act read with the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the appellant-insurer with liability and the findings returned on issue No. 2 are upheld. 16. Having said so, the impugned award is well reasoned, needs no interference. 17. Viewed thus, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed alongwith all pending applications. 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 Tribunal's file.