JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal, is, directed, by, the insurer, of, the offending vehicle, against, the award, pronounced, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla, Camp at Rohru, H.P., upon, MAC Petition No. 3-R/2, of, 2016, where through, compensation amount, comprised, in, a sum of Rs. 5,94,000/-,stood assessed, vis-a-vis, the disabled claimant, (i) and, thereon stood levied, interest, at, the rate of 9%, (ii) and, the afore rate of interest, was, ordered to commence, from, the date of petition, till realization thereof, (iii) and, the apposite indemnificatory liability, stood fastened, upon, the insurer of the offending vehicle. 2. Tritely, the award, where against, the instant appeal stands reared, is, made upon, a, petition, constituted, under, Section 163-A, of, the Motor Vehicles Act. Consequently, it was not imperative, for, the learned Tribunal, to, make any decision, vis-a-vis, the fault, of, the driver concerned. Undisputedly, the driver holds, a, valid, and, effective driving license, to, drive the apposite category, of, vehicle, and, during course, of, plying whereof, for, his hence detecting, any, mechanical defect therein, it met with, a, mishap, hence, entailing upon him, a, disability, as, pronounced in Ext. PW-6/A. 3. The learned counsel for the insurer, does not, contest, the, fact qua the disabled claimant being a mechanic. However, he contests the factum of his being deployed, by its registered owner, to, drive the afore vehicle, in the afore capacity, and, for his hence, detecting, the, occurrences therein of any patent, or, latent defects, (i) his afore contention is rested, upon, the registered owner, in his deposition making, an echoing, vis-a-vis, his not being proficient, to, drive the vehicle, and, his rather deposing qua his son driving, the, vehicle. The effects, of, his though making, a, deposition, in his examination-in-chief, (ii) qua his handing over the vehicle concerned, to the petitioner, rather for the afore relevant purpose, (iii) whereas, his acquiescing, to, a suggestion, vis-a-vis, his not personally, handing over the vehicle, to, the disabled claimant, for, the relevant purpose, rather his son handing over the vehicle, for, the relevant purpose, to, the disabled claimant, (iv) are, also capitalized, by, the owner, to, contend, qua, the disabled claimant unauthorizedly driving the vehicle, and, hence his not being entitled to maintain, the, apposite petition, and, nor obviously, his being entitled, to, claim any assessment, of, monetary compensation, qua him. However, his afore submission, is, falteringly made, (a) as, neither the registered owner, nor, his son has made, any, report to the authorities concerned, vis-a-vis, the disabled claimant, committing theft, of, the vehicle concerned, (b) and, for lack of the afore evidence, vis-a-vis, commission, of, theft of, the apposite vehicle, (c) and, when the effective control, of, the vehicle, was, throughout assumed, by the son of the registered owner, and, when thereupon, the, latter could, dehors, the registered owner, exercising define authority, upon, the vehicle, rather held, the, implied authority, to ensure, the, keeping, of, the vehicle, in a roadworthy, and, pliable condition, and, concomitantly also held a valid/implied authority, to, hence engage, a, mechanic, for, plying it, for, the latter detecting, any mechanical defect therein, patent, or, latent, (d) thereupon when the insurer does not contest, the, factum, vis-a-vis, the disabled claimant, being a mechanic, (e) thereupon it is to be firmly concluded, that, the disabled claimant, was validly deployed, as s mechanic, in the vehicle concerned, (f) and, when during the course of his driving it, for, his hence detecting any mechanical defect therein, patent or latent, it met, with, an accident, (g) thereupon, when he held, the, authority, to, drive the vehicle, hence he was entitled, for, determination, of, monetary compensation qua him, and, also hence, the apposite indemnificatory liability, being amenable to be saddled, upon, the insurer of the vehicle concerned. 6. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit, in, the appeal filed, by the insurer, and, is hence dismissed, and, the impugned award, is, maintained, and, affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.