JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral): This petition has been instituted against Award dated 0.8.2008 rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Claim Petition Nos. 78 of 2001, 212 of 2005. 2. “Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that respondents/claimants No.1 to 5 (hereinafter referred to as 'claimants' for convenience sake) owned and possessed a double storey house on the road side, comprised in Khewat /Khatauni No. 10/13 Khasra No. 290 situate at village Kunnu (Batehar) Tehsil Padhar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Ground floor of the house was damaged when a Truck bearing registration No. HP-K-1255 rammed into the dwelling house of the claimants on 2.5.2001 at about 8.30 AM, which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 7 (Suresh Kumar). Ground floor walls were damaged and glazed verandah having wooden covering, doors and windows were also damaged. Furniture lying in the drawing room of the ground floor was also damaged. Damaged house was visited by police authorities and also by the Assistant Engineer (retired), B & R Division of PWD, for the purpose of making an assessment of loss and he assessed the loss suffered by the claimants to the tune of Rs.2,37,000/-. Claimants also claimed compensation towards mental torture and physical harassment. 3. Petition was contested by respondents No. 6 and 7. They filed joint reply to the petition. It was denied that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 7. It was denied that the house in question was badly damaged and that the walls and furniture were destroyed. Claimants forced respondent No. 6 to pay Rs.10,000/- under threats. Vehicle in question was insured with the petitioner-insurance company from 15.12.2000 to 14.12.2001 at Palampur office. It was also denied that respondents No.6 and 7 were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 4. Petitioner-insurance company also filed a separate reply. Preliminary objection was taken that driver of the truck bearing registration No. HP-K-1255 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. There was breach of mandatory terms and conditions of the policy. Vehicle in question was not road worthy. Claimants had already compromised the matter by accepting Rs.10,000/- as final settlement. Insured has colluded with the claimants. 5. There was breach of mandatory terms and conditions of the policy. Vehicle in question was not road worthy. Claimants had already compromised the matter by accepting Rs.10,000/- as final settlement. Insured has colluded with the claimants. 5. Issues were framed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal below on 19.6.2003. A sum of Rs.2,27,000/- was awarded to the claimants alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realisation. Hence, this petition. 6. Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate has vehemently argued that the Award was excessive and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has not correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. He has relied upon the assessment made by the Surveyor. 7. Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate has supported the Award dated 30.8.2008. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the Award and the record carefully. 9. Bhupinder Pal (PW-1) has proved FIR No. 182/2001 under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, Ext. PW-1/A. Kamla Devi (PW-2) has deposed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 7. Kishori Lal (PW-7) deposed that truck driver was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the truck rammed inside the house of claimants. Suresh Kumar (RW-2) has admitted that he applied brakes and vehicle went out of control. He admitted that the road was Pucca and wide. Claimants had proved that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver i.e. respondent No. 7 namely Suresh Kumar. The truck has rammed into the dwelling house of the claimants on 2.5.2001 at 8.30 AM. Kamla Devi (PW-2) deposed that her house comprised of four rooms and two verandahs on upper storey and ground floor. House was constructed about 7-8 years back and was constructed with stone masonry and wood. It was slate roofed. Roof of the house also collapsed. Furniture was also damaged including sofa set, Diwan, TV Trolley. Tatima was prepared by Patwari. She suffered a loss of Rs.3.00 Lakh. They were forced to shift their residence. Devinder Singh (PW-4) has proved Tatima Ext. PW-4/A. Ravi Kumar (PW-6) has proved the photographs Ext. P1 to Ext. P7 and negatives of photoraphs Ext. P8 to Ext. P14. Furniture was also damaged including sofa set, Diwan, TV Trolley. Tatima was prepared by Patwari. She suffered a loss of Rs.3.00 Lakh. They were forced to shift their residence. Devinder Singh (PW-4) has proved Tatima Ext. PW-4/A. Ravi Kumar (PW-6) has proved the photographs Ext. P1 to Ext. P7 and negatives of photoraphs Ext. P8 to Ext. P14. Kishori Lal (PW-7) has testified that when the truck rammed into the house of claimants, a loud noise was heard. All the windows and doors of the house of the claimants were broken. Roof had also collapsed. Nokhu Ram (PW-5) is a material witness. He was retired SDO. He visited the spot. He prepared site plan of the house of the claimants, Ext. PW-5/A, detailed measurement of House, Ext. PW-5/B, annexures of the measurement, Ext. PW-5/C and Ext. PW-5/D, abstract of costs Ext. PW-5/E. According to him, the house was not fit for habitation nor it was fit for repairs. He has given the estimate of damages as per schedule at the time of construction of the house. According to him, the damage sustained by the claimants was to the tune of Rs.2,37,000/-. He has denied the suggestion that he has not visited the spot and Exts. PW-5/A to PW-5/E have been falsely prepared. 10. Shri Rajinder Pal (RW-1) deposed that no damage was caused to the claimants except one wooden pillar was damaged. In his cross-examination, he admitted that house of the claimants was made of stones, bricks and wood. He admitted that the walls of the house were cemented. He also did not deny that the verandah of the house of claimants was covered with wood. 11. Suresh Kumar (RW-2) has denied that the truck has entered the house of the claimants and furniture, windows, doors and walls of the house were broken and walls had developed cracks. 12. Mohinder Sharma appeared as RW-3. he has prepared drawing of the house Ext. RW-3/A and Ext. RW-3/B, measurement sheet Ext. RW-3/C, abstract of costs Ext. RW-3/D and photographs Ext. RW-3/E-1 to Ext. RW-3/E-17 and report Ext. RW-3/F. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was an automobile engineer. He has admitted that he has not given any assessment that how much wooden work was done in the building and he has also not given any reference of furniture etc. in his report. RW-3/D and photographs Ext. RW-3/E-1 to Ext. RW-3/E-17 and report Ext. RW-3/F. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was an automobile engineer. He has admitted that he has not given any assessment that how much wooden work was done in the building and he has also not given any reference of furniture etc. in his report. He had taken one Sanjay Rana, Civil Engineer for the purpose of assessment of damaged house of the claimants. 13. Claimants have duly proved that their house was damaged, roof had collapsed, furniture lying in the house was also damaged. Damage has been assessed by Nokhu Ram (PW-5). Mohinder Sharma (RW-3) was only an automobile engineer. He was not a civil engineer. According to Mohinder Sharma, he has taken one Shri Sanjay Rana, Civil Engineer to assess the damage to the house of the claimants. However, Sanjay Rana has not been cited as a witness. Nokhu Ram (PW-5) is a civil engineer. He has retired as SDO. 14. There is no evidence that the claimants have compromised the matter with respondent No. 6 (Rajinder Pal), rather, as per the contents of Ext. RA respondent No. 6 has admitted that the truck bearing registration No. HP-K-1255 rammed into the house of the claimants. He had given Rs.10,000/- to help claimant No.1, Kamla Devi. 15. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly deducted Rs.10,000/- from the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants. The truck in question was duly insured with the petitioner-insurance company from 15.12.2000 to 14.12.2001. Driver was having a valid and effective driving licence. 16. Thus, there is no illegality or perversity in the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal below. 17. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.