JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The Insurer of the offending vehicle, has, instituted the instant appeal before this Court, where through, it, casts, a, challenge, upon, the award pronounced by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, H.P., upon, M.A.C.T. No. 4-S/2 of 2009, whereunder, compensation amount comprised, in, a sum of Rs.1,47,804/-alongwith costs, and, interest accruing thereon, borne in, a, the rate of 9% 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 or the appellant/insurer, (i) does not contest, the validity, of, the affirmative findings, rendered by the learned tribunal, upon, issue No.1, appertaining to the relevant accident, being, a, sequel of rash, and, negligent manner, of, driving of the offending vehicle, by one Ramesh Kumar, respondent No.2 herein, (ii) nor he casts any challenge, upon, the quantum of compensation assessed, vis-a-vis, the claimant, besides, he does not contest the disaffirmative findings rendered, upon, the apposite issue appertaining to the driver of the offending vehicle, not, possessing, a, valid and effective driving licence, at the relevant time, to hence drive the offending vehicle, (iii) rather his contest is limited to the extant qua with the contract of insurance, borne in Ex.RW1/A, being executed inter se the insurer, and, one Malkiyat Singh, and, with the afore Malkiyat Singh neither standing impleaded as a party, nor his instituting a reply to the petition, (iv) whereas, he was solitarily entitled to be indemnified by the insurer, for the injuries, sustained by the claimant, in the relevant mishap, (v) given only the afore Malkiyat Singh, being privity to the contract, of, insurance, borne in Ex.RW1/A, thereupon, rather rendered his impleadment to be both, necessary, and, imperative. However, the aforesaid submission, would, contain immense vigour, (vi) only when the insurer, had, proven that Malkiyat Singh, was a fictitious person, and, the contract of insurance, borne in Ex.RW1/A was fictitious, or stood engendered by vice, of, misrepresentation, (vii) evidence whereof, is, grossly amiss hereat, and, further when rather the further transfer, of the offending vehicle has evidently occurred subsequent, to, the occurrence, vis-avis, Rameshwar Singh, and, when the transfer has resulted in the apt R.C. being drawn, vis-a-vis, Rameshwar Singh, (viii) thereupon, when, at the relevant time, hence Rameshwar Singh was driving the offending vehicle, (ix) and, when he has been aptly concluded, to be holding, an effective driving licence to drive it, (x) besides, when the name of Rameshwar Singh, occurs in Ex. RW1/B, to be rather the addressee, appertaining to the insurer one Malkiyat Singh, (xi) thereupon, there was no absolute need for begetting impleadment of Malkiyat Singh, as a party to the lis, even when he was privy to the contract of insurance, rather when Ex.RW1/A stood tendered into evidence by the insurer, and, also its standing drawn, vis-a-vis, the offending vehicle, thereupon, dehors it being issued, vis-a-vis, Malkiyat Singh, rather renders the insurer, for being saddled with the liability, to, indemnify, the, compensation amount. 3. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. The impugned award is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.