Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

1. By the medium of this appeal, the appellant insurer has called in question award, dated 21st April, 2012, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 26/2010, titled as Parul Sharma and others v. ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. and another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,48,900/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer was saddled with liability (for short "the impugned award"), on the grounds taken in the memo of the appeal. In order to determine this appeal, it is necessary to give a brief resume of the facts of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the appeal in hand.

2. Deceased Vijay Sharma, while driving the Car, bearing registration No. HP33 A9112 on 19th January, 2010, met with an accident at about 10.00 P.M. near Tata Motors Lunapani, while going from Sundernagar to Mandi, due to which he sustained injuries, was taken to Harihar Hospital, Gutkar, from where he was referred to PGI Chandigarh, where he remained admitted and succumbed to the said injuries on 31st January, 2010.

3. The legal representatives of deceased Vijay Sharma invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "MV Act") and sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- as per the breakups given in the claim petition.

4. The respondents in the claim petition resisted the same on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 10th May, 2011:

"1. Whether the petitioners being legal representatives/dependants of deceased Sh. Vijay Sharma, are entitled for grant of compensation, if so to what amount and from which of the respondents? OPP

2. Whether the petition is not maintainable and sustainable as alleged? OPR1

3. Whether there is any violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, if so its effect? OPR1

4. Relief."

6. In support of their claim, one of the claimants, namely Smt. Parul Sharma, stepped into the witness box as PW1. The owner insured, namely Shri Dina Nath Sharma, examined Shri Man Singh as PW2 and himself stepped into the witness box as PW1. The insurer has not led any evidence.

7. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, decided issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. Issues No. 2 and 3 also came to be decided against the insurer on the ground that it has not led any evidence and compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,48,900/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization was granted in favour of the claimants.

8. The claimants and the owner insured of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them.

9. The appellant insurer has called in question the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling it with liability.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant insurer argued that deceased Vijay Sharma, who was the son of owner insured of the offending vehicle, was in possession and control of the offending vehicle, was driving the same at the time of the accident and had stepped into the shoes of the owner. Further argued that deceased Vijay Sharma was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently at the time of the accident, thus, the claim petition was not maintainable.

11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimants respondents No. 1 to 3 argued that the claimants are the victims of the vehicular accident, the claim petition was maintainable and the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award.

12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

13. The