The main legal point established in the judgment is that retrospective renewal of a driver's license makes it effective and valid, influencing the insurer's liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, Section 15(4).

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J.

By the medium of this appeal, the appellant has questioned the award, dated 20.01.2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.74-D/II/2005/02, titled as Baldev Kumar versus Vinod Kumar and another, whereby and whereunder compensation to the tune of Rs.6,83,000/- stands awarded in favour of the claimant (respondent No.2 herein), and against the owner-appellant, with interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition, (for short, the impugned award).

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that Claimant Baldev Kumar (respondent No.2 herein) filed a Claim Petition for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.8.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the Claim Petition, on the ground that he became victim of a vehicular accident, caused by Vinod Kumar (appellant herein) while driving a three wheeler bearing registration No.HP-40-0520, rashly and negligently, on 30.8.2001, at about 9.30 a.m. near Manuni Khud. The Claimant sustained injuries in the said accident, was taken to Civil Hospital, Kangra, fromwhere was referred to Dr.R.P.M.C. Hospital, Dharamshala and thereafter to CMC, TTV Chhutani Charitable Trust, Chandigarh. It is averred in the Claim Petition that the accident rendered the Claimant jobless and not in a position to earn anything and has also spent huge amount on his treatment.

3. The insurer and the owner/driver filed objections to the Claim Petition.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the Tribunal :

“1. Whether the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved in the affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the terms of the policy are violated and respondent No.2 is thus not liable? OPR-2

4. Whether the petitioner was gratuitous passenger and is not covered under the insurance policy? OPR-2

5. Relief.”

5. In support of his claim, the claimant has examined as many as three witnesses, while respondent No.1 (owner-driver) has examined one witness and the insurer-respondent No.2 has examined three witnesses.

6. In regard to issue No.1, the claimant has proved that the driver (appellant herein) was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and has caused the accident. Neither the owner/driver/insured nor the insurer has questioned the findings recorded by the Tribunal under issue No.1 and accordingly, the findings recorded by the Tribunal under this issue are upheld having attained finality.

7. Before issues No.2 and 3 are taken up, I deem it proper, at the first instance, to deal with issue No.4. The insurer had to prove that the Claimant was traveling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger and thus, was not covered under the insurance contract. However, the insurer has failed to lead any evidence to that effect. The Tribunal has rightly decided this issue in favour of the Claimant and against the insurer. It is apt to record herein that even the insurer has not questioned the said findings, thus, the same have attained finality and are accordingly upheld.

8. Now coming to issues No.2 and 3, I deem it proper to decide these issues together being interlinked. The Tribunal, after scanning the record and making the guess work, has come to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.6,83,000/- with interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum, which finding is not the subject matter of this appeal for the reason that neither the Claimant nor the appellant has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. The only ground pressed into service by the appellant-owner/driver is that the insurer has wrongly been exonerated/discharged from the liability. Thus, the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is upheld.

9. Now the