JUDGMENT Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J. This appeal from order is directed against the judgment and award dated 28.01.2009 passed by M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge/3rd F.T.C., Udham Singh Nagar (Rudrapur) in M.A.C. case no. 215 of 2007, whereby the claim petition filed by respondents/claimants was allowed against the respondent no.5 for a sum of Rs. 4,40,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date actual payment is made. The Tribunal has directed that the respondent no.5 would be at liberty to recover the amount of compensation from the appellant-The General Manager, The Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that on 04.03.2007 deceased Shiv Nandan Singh, aged about 30 years, along with driver Raghuveer Singh (respondent no.6 herein) was travelling by UA-06E/2223. Respondent no.6 was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner due to which the vehicle lost its control and fell into the river. Shiv Nandan Singh died on the spot. The deceased was aged about 30 years and was working as a daily wager in the appellant Mill. Besides, he used to do welding work, and from all these sources, he was easily earning Rs.8,000/- per month. With these averments, wife and minor children of the deceased filed the claim petition. 3. Appellant and respondent no.6-driver filed their separate written statements and admitted the factum of accident, but denied the fact that the vehicle was being driven by respondent no.6 rashly and negligently. They both stated that the accident occurred due to technical fault. 4. Respondent no.5–United India Insurance Company Ltd. also filed its written statement denied the factum of accident on account of lack of information. It is also stated that the Insurance Company would be liable to pay compensation only if the registration, insurance and driving license is found valid and effective on the date of accident. 5. On the pleadings of parties, Tribunal framed the following issues:- i) Whether on 04.03.2007 at about 02:00 pm when the deceased Shiv Nandan was travelling in vehicle UA 06-E/2223, due to rash and negligent driving by its driver the vehicle met with an accident, due to which the Shiv Nandan died on the spot? ii) Whether on the date of incident the driver of vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license and the insurance policy was not valid? ii) Whether on the date of incident the driver of vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license and the insurance policy was not valid? If yes, its effect. iii) Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation? If yes, from which party? 6. Thereafter the parties led their evidence. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, issue no.1 was decided by the tribunal in favour of the claimants. On issue no.2, learned Tribunal recorded a finding that burden was upon the Insurance Company to prove this issue however no evidence has been led by the Insurance Company in this regard, and accordingly, issue no.2 was decided against the Insurance Company. On issue no.3, learned Tribunal recorded a finding that as the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving by its driver and both the deceased and the driver were employed with the appellant, thus, the appellant is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. However, keeping in mind the interest of the claimants, the Tribunal directed the respondent no.5 United Insurance Company Ltd. to pay the amount of Compensation of Rs.4,40,000/- to the claimant with recovery right reserve to the respondent no.5 to recover the same from the appellant. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 28.01.2009, appellant has preferred the present appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The appeal has been preferred mainly on the following two grounds:- i) That the respondent no.6 was not at fault and was not negligent in the discharge of duties and that the accident occurred due to technical fault. ii) Compensation awarded to the claimants is exorbitant. 9. The appellant, in its written statement, has pleaded that the vehicle was being driven by the driver cautiously and at a moderate speed, but due to some technical fault in the vehicle, accident occurred resulting the death of deceased. The plea of technical fault was taken by the appellant but the appellant did not adduce any evidence in support thereof and hence it was held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving. Driver and the deceased both were employed with the appellant company, and hence, the Tribunal has rightly fixed liability upon the appellant. 10. The plea of technical fault was taken by the appellant but the appellant did not adduce any evidence in support thereof and hence it was held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving. Driver and the deceased both were employed with the appellant company, and hence, the Tribunal has rightly fixed liability upon the appellant. 10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.4,40,000/- alongwith 7% interest p.a. in favour of the claimants. In case of death of a young boy of age 30 years, compensation of Rs.4,40,000/- is neither exorbitant nor appropriate but as there is no appeal for enhancement at the behest of the claimants, compensation cannot be enhanced on the principle that an appellant cannot be reduced to a position worse than the one he would be in if he had not hazarded to file an appeal. 11. No other point was pressed. 12. In view of the findings recorded above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal. Appeal from order lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 13. Let the statutory amount, alongwith interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. Lower court record be also sent back.