JUDGMENT JUDGMENT P.K. Lohra, J. - Appellant insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, ''Act'') to question legality and propriety of judgment and award dated 12th of January 2011, rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Addl. District & Sessions Judge F.T. No. 4), Udaipur (for short, ''learned Tribunal''). By the impugned judgment and award, learned Tribunal, while adjudicating the claim of first respondent-claimant under Section 166 of the Act, quantified and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,02,312 for the disability suffered by him in a motor accident. 2. Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that respondent-claimant laid a claim petition, inter-alia, stating therein that on 30th of May 2005, when he was going on his motorcycle No. RJ-27-5M-1161, the same collided with Bus bearing No. RJ-12-P-0634 near Phila village. The respondent-claimant specifically pleaded that he was driving his motorcycle in strict adherence of traffic laws, at a moderate speed, but accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver second respondent Nana Lal alias Nanu Ram. The claim petition further unfurled that due to accident, respondent-claimant suffered simple and grievous injuries on his right knee and thigh. Thereafter, a report was lodged with Police Station Kurabad, wherein after investigation the driver was charge-sheeted. For quantifying amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,50,000, respondent-claimant pleaded many facts including a very vital fact that due to the injuries suffered in road accident he has become partially incapacitated to earn his livelihood by manufacturing furniture. In substance, respondent-claimant averred in the claim petition that he was earning 5000-6000 per month but the accidental injury resulting in 20% permanent disability has sufficiently impaired his efficiency so as to affect his earnings. 3. The claim petition is contested by owner of the vehicle as well as appellant insurance company. The owner of the vehicle completely denied the factum of accident but admitted that the vehicle allegedly involved in accident was insured with the appellant insurance company. The appellant insurance company also submitted its reply with a specific objection that the motorcycle was plied by respondent-claimant in utter disregard to the Motor Vehicles Act as well as rules made thereunder, inasmuch as, at the time of accident three pillion riders accompanied him. The appellant insurance company also submitted its reply with a specific objection that the motorcycle was plied by respondent-claimant in utter disregard to the Motor Vehicles Act as well as rules made thereunder, inasmuch as, at the time of accident three pillion riders accompanied him. It is also averred by the insurance company that at the time of accident respondent-claimant was not having any valid driving licence. The appellant insurance company also seriously disputed validity of the driving licence of first respondent, driver of the bus. 4. On the strength of pleadings of rival parties, learned Tribunal framed three issues for determination. In order to substantiate his claim, respondent-claimant himself appeared in the witness box and produced 46 documents, which were exhibited. On behalf of respondents, three witnesses were examined; viz., NAW1 Bhanwar Singh, NAW2 Bhanu Pratap Singh, NAW3 Mrs. Devyani Bhattacharya, and exhibited 7 documents. Relying on evidence of the rival parties, learned Tribunal proceeded to examine each issue and decided the issue of rash and negligent driving in favour of respondent-claimant. Switching on to Issue No. 3, learned Tribunal analyzed the evidence and found that appellant insurance company has not been able to prove that driver of the insured vehicle was not in possession of a valid driving licence/possessing a fake driving licence and the insured had not taken due care to verify the validity of driving licence of driver satisfying the requirements of normal prudency. With this finding, the learned Tribunal decided Issue No. 2 against the appellant. Adverting to Issue No. 2, learned Tribunal, while considering age of the respondent-claimant, in between 20 to 25 years, taken his monthly income as Rs. 3,000 and in the backdrop of 20% permanent disability, assessed the loss of income to the tune of Rs. 600 per mensem, i.e., Rs. 7,200 annually. Taking into consideration the expenses for medical attendance, bills for treatment and 30% contributory negligence of the respondent-claimant, learned Tribunal, finally, quantified the compensation payable to respondent-claimant to the tune of Rs. 1,02,312. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award. 6. The instant appeal is pending before this Court since 2011 and no interim relief has been granted to the appellant insurance company. The impugned judgment and award was passed on 12th of January 2011 and since then almost 7 years have passed. 1,02,312. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award. 6. The instant appeal is pending before this Court since 2011 and no interim relief has been granted to the appellant insurance company. The impugned judgment and award was passed on 12th of January 2011 and since then almost 7 years have passed. Upon examining the impugned judgment and award, it is crystal clear that the learned Tribunal, upon appreciation of evidence, has decided Issue No. 1 regarding rash and negligent driving against appellant and other non-applicants. The best possible evidence, in this behalf of non-applicants could have been of the driver of offending vehicle Nana Lal alias Nanu Ram, but, unfortunately neither he has contested the claim, nor appeared in the witness box. Therefore, in that background, the unimpeachable evidence of the respondent-claimant has been rightly relied upon by the learned Tribunal for deciding Issue No. 1 in favour of respondent(claimant. The crucial issue, on which much emphasis is laid by learned counsel for the appellant, is Issue No. 3, but then in this behalf the appellant insurance company has not been able to tender requisite evidence that owner of the vehicle was abreast about a very vital fact that driver was not having a valid driving licence or he was in possession of a fake driving licence. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has also recorded a finding that the evidence tendered by insurance company is not of sterling worth to prove that insured has not taken due care to verify the validity of driving licence of driver. Therefore, in that background, the learned Tribunal has declined the plea of appellant insurer to absolve it from liability to pay compensation in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In my opinion, the said finding cannot be faulted. As regards issue relating to quantum of compensation, suffice it to observe that learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation moderately and has also reduced compensation by taking into account 30% contributory negligence of the respondent-claimant. In totality, the amount of compensation assessed by learned Tribunal is a meager sum of Rs. 1,02,000, therefore, the finding and conclusions of the learned Tribunal on Issue No. 2 also warrant no interference. In totality, the amount of compensation assessed by learned Tribunal is a meager sum of Rs. 1,02,000, therefore, the finding and conclusions of the learned Tribunal on Issue No. 2 also warrant no interference. While it is true that insurance company can raise a plea about validity of driving licence but then there are two contingencies; viz., (1) when no driving licence is available, and (2) the alleged driving licence is spurious. In case of spurious driving licence, heavy burden is casted on the insurance company to prove that the insured has not taken due care to verify genuineness of the driving licence before handing over vehicle to the driver. In such situations, normal rule of prudency applies and it is rather difficult to comprehend that owner of vehicle is required to verify the genuineness of driving licence while handing over vehicle to a driver. The learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue No. 3 has recorded a definite finding that requisite evidence at the behest of insurance company is not available on record to show that insured was negligent in handing over vehicle to a driver who was in possession of a fake driving licence. It is also noteworthy that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, wherein appeal is pending since last almost 7 years, no interim relief is granted to the appellant and the learned Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of compensation, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the impugned award. 7. Resultantly, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.