JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. Subject matter of this appeal is award, dated 27th June, 2012, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in MAC Petition No. 56-MAC/2 of 2008, titled as Smt. Bulo Devi and Others vs. Shri Rakesh Kumar and Others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and against the insurer (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The claimants, owner-insured and 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 called in question the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer argued that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same and the amount awarded is excessive. 5. Both these arguments are not tenable for the following reasons. 6. The claimants, being the victims of the vehicular accident, which was caused by the driver, namely Shri Rakesh Kumar, while driving tractor, bearing Registration No. HR-04A-7307, rashly and negligently on 13th February, 2008, at about 12.15 P.M., near Parmeshwar Gas Factory on Suketi Kala Amb Road, filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,00,000/- as per the breakups given in the claim petition. 7. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents and the following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether Ganesh Saha died on account of rash or negligent driving of Tractor No. HR-04-7307 by respondent No. 1 Rajesh Kumar on 13.02.2008 at about 12.15 PM near Parmeshwar Gas Factory on SaketiKala Amb road, as alleged? OPP 2. In case Issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the driver of the vehicle in question did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time, as alleged? OPR-3 4. Whether the tractor in question was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-3 4A. OPP 3. Whether the driver of the vehicle in question did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time, as alleged? OPR-3 4. Whether the tractor in question was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-3 4A. Whether the offending vehicle bore registration No. HR-04A-7307, or not? OPP 5. Relief.” 8. Parties have led evidence. 9. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, awarded compensation in favour of the claimants and saddled the appellant-insurer with liability in terms of the impugned award. Hence, the appeal. Issues No. 1 and 4-A. 10. The Tribunal, while determining issues No. 1 and 4-A, held that the claimants have proved that the driver, namely Shri Rakesh Kumar, had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently on 13th February, 2008, at about 12.15 P.M., near Parmeshwar Gas Factory on Suketi Kala Amb Road, in which deceased-Ganesh Saha sustained injuries and succumbed to the said injuries. There is no challenge to the said findings. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issues No. 1 and 4-A are upheld. 11. Before dealing with issue No. 2, I deem it appropriate to determine issues No. 3 and 4. Issue No. 3: 12. It was for the insurer to lead evidence to prove that that driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same. I have gone through the detailed discussions made by the Tribunal in paras 12 to 14 of the impugned award and am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly determined issue No. 3 against the insurer and is, accordingly, upheld. Issue No. 4: 13. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the owner-insured has committed willful breach of the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy, has not led any evidence to this effect. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 4 are upheld. Issue No. 2: 14. I have gone though the discussions made by the Tribunal in para 11 of the impugned award. The Tribunal has rightly made the assessment, needs no interference. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on the said issue are upheld. 15. Having said so, the impugned award is well reasoned and legal one, needs no interference. 16. I have gone though the discussions made by the Tribunal in para 11 of the impugned award. The Tribunal has rightly made the assessment, needs no interference. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on the said issue are upheld. 15. Having said so, the impugned award is well reasoned and legal one, needs no interference. 16. Having glance of the above discussions, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 17. The awarded amount be released in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award after proper identification through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in their respective bank accounts. 18. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.