JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The Insurer of the offending vehicle, has, instituted the instant appeal before this Court, wherethrough, it, casts, a, challenge, upon, the award pronounced by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba, H.P., upon, MAC No. 179/2011/2010-T, whereunder, compensation amount comprised, in, a sum of Rs.1,41,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, and, commencing from, the date of petition till realization thereof, stood, assessed, vis-a-vis, the claimant, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was, fastened upon the insurer/appellant herein. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer, has, contended with much vigour before this Court (i) that, with, at the relevant time, the, claimant hence traveling as, a, gratuitous passenger, in, the offending vehicle, whereas, the contract of insurance borne in Ex. Rx, prohibiting, the carrying, upon, the offending vehicle, and, in the afore capacity, rather the claimant, (ii) thereupon, with, hence, evident fundamental breach of contract of insurance, borne in Ex. Rx, rather erupting, (iii) thereupon, the fastening of the apt indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer being amenable for reversal. However, the aforesaid espousal is not borne, by the apt evidence existing on record, given (a) the claimant while appearing as PW-6, hence testifying, qua, at the relevant time, his trudging, at the relevant site of occurrence, and, thereat, the offending while, while being driven in a rash and negligent manner, by respondent No.1 (before the tribunal), its striking him; (b) further his testifying that in sequel thereto, his sustaining injuries, on his person; (c) the afore echoing borne in his testification, qua the ill fated occurrence, though, is contrary to the one, borne in the FIR, embodied in Ex.PW2/A, lodged at the instance of Narender Kumar, wherein, rather echoings hence supportive of the afore espousal reared, before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant, hence, exist; (d) yet no reliance can be meted to the recitals borne in Ex.PW2/A, given, the informant thereof, one Narender Kumar not stepping into the witness box, for, hence proving the afore echoings, borne in Ex.PW2/A. The effect thereof being, the uneroded testification of the claimant, carrying therein obviously contra therewith recitals, as, borne in Ex.PW2/A, getting hence cogently proven. The corollary of the aforesaid inference, is, qua the claimant proving, that, his at the relevant time, hence, not traveling as, a, gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle, rather his proving qua at the relevant time, his rather trudging on the road. Further, sequel thereof, is that the fastening of the apt indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer, not being ingrained with any gross fallibility. 3. The learned counsel, appearing for the insurer, has also contended, that with the offending vehicle, not, at the relevant time, possessing the apt route permit, hence, the fastening of the apt indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer, rather warranting interference. The afore contention, is, dispelled by the existence on record, of, a copy of route permit, borne in Ex. Z-1, and, with no evidence being adduced by the insurer, that, the afore route permit, at the time of its issuance, was not, accompanied by the apt fitness certificate, issued by the licencing authority concerned, thereupon, it is to be firmly concluded qua the fastening of the apt indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer rather being both, apt and tenable. 4. Even though, the claimant, has admitted qua, in sequel, to his sustaining injuries on his person, his not being entailed with any disability, yet the effect thereof, is qua, it, not impairing the claim, for, compensation, as, assessed, vis-a-vis, the claimant, by the learned tribunal, (a) given its appertaining, to, the requisite expenditure incurred by the claimant towards, purchase of medicines, (b) towards special diet, and, towards services of an attendant, and, other ancillary charges, (c) and also the claim of compensation, assessed under the head of transportation charges, likewise also does not merit any interference. Moreover, the assessment of compensation, vis-a-vis, the claimant, under, the head “shock, pain suffering and discomfort”, comprised in a sum of Rs.50,000/- is also just and fair. Accordingly, it also does not merit any interference. 5. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. The award impugned before this Court is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.