JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, JJ. This appeal is directed against award, dated 23rd January, 2012, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba, Division Chamba, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in MAC Petition No. 14 of 2010, titled as Smt. Reshma and others versus Shri Kamal Deen and another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,70,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer was saddled with liability (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The claimants and the owner/insured-cum-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. The appellant-insurer has questioned the impugned award on the following two grounds: (i) That the owner/insured-cum-driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident; and (ii) That the amount awarded is excessive. 4. Both the grounds are not sustainable for the following reasons: 5. The claimants filed claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation, as per the breakups given in the claim petition, was resisted by the respondents and the following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether deceased Raj Deen died because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP-73-0791 by respondent No. 1 on 27.3.2010 at Kaman near Chowari, Tehsil Bhattiyat, District Chamba as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in the affirmative, how much compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the driver of vehicle in question was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time, if so, its effect? OPR2 4. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven at the relevant time against the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy, as alleged? OPR2 5. Relief.” 6. Parties have led evidence. 7. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, awarded compensation in favour of the claimants and saddled the insurer with liability in terms of the impugned award. Hence, the appeal. Issue No. 1: 8. OPR2 5. Relief.” 6. Parties have led evidence. 7. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, awarded compensation in favour of the claimants and saddled the insurer with liability in terms of the impugned award. Hence, the appeal. Issue No. 1: 8. The Tribunal, while determining issue No. 1, held that deceased Raj Deen died because of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver on 27th March, 2010 at Kaman. There is no dispute viz-a-viz the said findings. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. 9. Before dealing with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to determine issues No. 3 and 4. Issues No. 3 and 4: 10. It was for the insurer to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Though, it has examined Shri Ashok Kumar, Senior Assistant from the office of RLA Chowari, as RW1, but, has failed to prove both these issues. 11. I have gone through the record. There are two driving licences on the record as Ext. R1 and Ext. RW1/ A. In terms of Ext. R1, the owner/insured-cum-driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. Even if we take Ext. RW1/ A to be the original driving licence, then also the owner/insured-cum-driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid and effecting driving licence to drive the offending vehicle, which is a light motor vehicle, as it has been held by the Apex Court and this Court in a series of cases that endorsement is not required. 12. The Tribunal has rightly made the discussion, while determining issues No. 3 and 4, in paras 20 and 21 of the impugned award, needs no interference. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 3 and 4 are upheld. Issue No. 2: 13. The amount awarded is too meagre, but, unfortunately, the claimants have not questioned the same, is reluctantly upheld. Even otherwise, the insurer cannot question the adequacy of compensation. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 2 are also upheld. 14. Issue No. 2: 13. The amount awarded is too meagre, but, unfortunately, the claimants have not questioned the same, is reluctantly upheld. Even otherwise, the insurer cannot question the adequacy of compensation. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 2 are also upheld. 14. Having glance of the above discussions, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 15. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in their respective bank accounts. 16. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.