JUDGMENT : Instant appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, lays challenge to impugned award dated 01.12.2017 in MAC Petition No.98-R/2 of 2016, titled Mohan Singh vs. Sh. Praksh Chand & others, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushehar, Himachal Pradesh, whereby tribunal below while allowing the claim petition having been filed by petitioner-claimant (hereinafter referred to as ‘claimant’) under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘Act’) saddled appellant/Insurance Company with liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,02,000/- on account of injuries sustained by the complainant in the road accident along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that claimant instituted petition under Section 166 of the Act, claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs.9 lac. on account of injuries sustained by him in the road accident. Claimant averred in the petition that on 14.12.2015, he was travelling in Maruti Car bearing No. HP-01-2979, being driven by late Surender Kumar, rashly and negligently. He alleged that on the date of accident, car fell into 60 feet gorge due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of car, who also died in the accident. He alleged that since he sustained multiple injuries on all parts of his body and remained admitted in hospital w.e.f. 14.12.2015 to 24.12.2015, he is entitled to compensation. He alleged that on account of injuries sustained by him, he has suffered disability, as a consequence of which, he is unable to do the horticulture and agriculture work from which he used to earn sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. He claimed before learned tribunal below that on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident, he is unable to sit and walk properly and as such, finding it difficult to maintain himself. Aforesaid claim put forth by the claimant came to be contested by respondents including appellant/Insurance Company. 3. Appellant/Insurance Company claimed that since vehicle in question was being plied in violation of terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy and at the time of accident, petitioner was travelling in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger, it is not liable to indemnify the insured. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by respective parties, following issues were framed on 04.01.2017: 1. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by respective parties, following issues were framed on 04.01.2017: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries on 14.12.2015, at about 10.00 AM, at Shinti Mod due to rash and negligent driving of deceased driver, who was driving the vehicle No.HP01- 2979, rashy and negligently? OPP 2. If Issue No.1, is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR-2 & 3. 4. Whether the vehicle was plied in contravention of terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR-3. 5. Whether driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid & effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3 6. Whether the petitioner was gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle? OPR-3. 7. Whether the petition is filed by the petitioner in collusion with the respondents No.1 & 2 ? OPR-3. 8. Relief. 4. Learned MACT below on the basis of evidence led on record by respective parties held appellant/insurance company liable to pay sum of Rs. 1,02,000/-, on account of injuries sustained by him in roadside accident along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. In the aforesaid background, appellant/Insurance Company has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to quash and set aside the impugned award. 5. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that primarily challenge to the award has been laid on the ground that once it stood proved on record that at the time of accident, vehicle was not fit to be plied, there was no occasion, if any, for MACT below to saddle Appellant/Insurance Company with liability. 6. Mr. P.S. Chandel, learned counsel representing the appellant/Insurance Company while inviting attention of this Court to Ext.R-1, i.e. Certificate of Registration, vehemently argued that vehicle was fit to be plied on the road till 27.10.2015, whereafter at no point of time, Certificate of Registration came to be renewed and as such, tribunal below erred in holding appellant/Insurance Company liable to indemnify the insured. 7. No doubt, perusal of aforesaid Ext. R-1, placed on record by appellant/Insurance Company reveals that fitness of the vehicle was valid upto 27.10.2015, but RW-1 Neer Singh Mehta, Sr. 7. No doubt, perusal of aforesaid Ext. R-1, placed on record by appellant/Insurance Company reveals that fitness of the vehicle was valid upto 27.10.2015, but RW-1 Neer Singh Mehta, Sr. Assistant, RTO, Shimla, produced as evidence by appellant/Insurance Company, in his cross-examination categorically admitted that fitness fee as well as fitness certificate can be deposited/taken in any other office and he has not brought record from the other office of registration and licence authority. This witness in his examination-in-chief while tendering copy of verification of permit Ext.R-2, deposed that as per report, fitness of the vehicle in question was expired on 27.10.2015 and permit was valid up to 21.10.2016. However, careful perusal of insurance policy Ext.RW-2/B reveals that it nowhere contains conditions, if any, with regard to fitness certificate. Appellant/Insurance Company beside examining RW-1 Neer Singh Mehta, Sr. Assistant, RTO, Shimla, also examined authorized representative of Insurance Company, RW-2 Sanjay Negi, who tendered his affidavit Ext. RW-2/A, whereby, he testified that offending vehicle bearing No.HP01A-2979 was a taxi and at the time of accident, driver was driving aforesaid taxi without driving licence. He deposed that vehicle was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy as at the time of accident, R.C. of the vehicle was found to have expired and vehicle was without fitness permit. Perusal of driving licence Ext.R-2, nowhere suggests that at the time of accident, driver of the vehicle was not having valid licence. Licence issued in favour of deceased driver was valid upto 22.11.2031 and it was issued for LMV. Since vehicle in question was Alto Car, it can nowhere be concluded that deceased driver was not entitled to drive the offending vehicle. Coordinate Bench of this Court in Raman Kumar vs. Sunil Kumar & others, reported in 2016 (1) Him.Law Reporer 239, has held that once specific condition with regard to fitness certificate is not contained in the insurance policy, ground taken by appellant/Insurance Company to refute the claim on the ground of expiry of fitness certificate cannot be allowed to be raised. Careful perusal of insurance policy nowhere suggests that on account of expiry of fitness certificate, Insurance Company shall not be liable to indemnify the insured. Careful perusal of insurance policy nowhere suggests that on account of expiry of fitness certificate, Insurance Company shall not be liable to indemnify the insured. No doubt, claim can be rejected if Insurance Company is able to prove that vehicle in question was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the policy, but such condition should be specifically contained in the insurance policy. Since, in the insurance policy, there is no specific condition with regard to expiry of fitness certificate coupled with the fact that it is not the case of the appellant/Insurance Company that at the time of accident, there was no valid Registration Certificate in favour of the offending vehicle, no fault, if any, can be said to have been committed by court below while saddling appellant/Insurance Company to indemnify the insured. 8. Though, besides aforesaid grounds, learned counsel representing the appellant/Insurance Company, also made endeavour to persuade this Court to agree with his contentions that tribunal below has failed to appreciate evidence in its right perspective and has wrongly proceeded to award compensation to the tune of Rs.1,02,000/-, but having carefully perused pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by claimant vis-a-vis reasoning assigned by tribunal below while saddling the appellant/Insurance Company liable to pay sum of Rs.1,02,000/-, this court finds no force in the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the Insurance Company. Since, factum with regard to accident as well as injuries caused by the respondent/claimant stands duly established on record, no illegality and infirmity can be said to have been committed by tribunal below while awarding the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,02,000/-. In the case at hand, claimant had claimed that he was earning Rs. 15,000/-- per month from his horticulture and agriculture pursuit, but since, he was unable to prove his income, tribunal below while applying minimum wages payable at that time, rightly proceeded to consider income of petitioner to the tune of Rs.200/- per day, i.e. to Rs.6000/- per month. Similarly, this Court finds that tribunal below having taken note of the injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as inconvenience caused to him on account of injuries, has awarded very reasonable amount and as such, no interference is called for. 9. Leaving everything aside, this Court otherwise having taken note of quantum of compensation, i.e. Rs. Similarly, this Court finds that tribunal below having taken note of the injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as inconvenience caused to him on account of injuries, has awarded very reasonable amount and as such, no interference is called for. 9. Leaving everything aside, this Court otherwise having taken note of quantum of compensation, i.e. Rs. 1,02,000/-, sees no reason to interfere in the impugned award, which otherwise appears to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence led on record by the respective parties. Consequently, in view of the above, present appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.