Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award, dated 3.10.2005, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 23 of 2005, titled as Kulwant Kaur v. Jasbir Singh, whereby Rs. 3,00,000 came to be awarded as compensation in favour of the claimant along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till its realization (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned award'), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. The appellant has taken a ground which, though attractive, is devoid of any force for the reason which I am going to discuss after noticing the brief facts of the case.

2. Claimant Kulwant Kaur has sought compensation for loss of her son, who became victim of motor accident, which was caused by Jasbir Singh, respondent No. 2, against the insurer and the driver without arraying the owner as a party, who also died in the said accident.

3. In order to determine the issue, I deem it proper to give a brief resume of the facts of the case.

Brief facts:

4. Claimant Kulwant Kaur has sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000 as per break-ups given in the claim petition on the grounds taken in the memo of the claim petition. It is averred in the claim petition that driver Jasbir Singh has driven the offending vehicle, Maruti car, bearing registration No. HP 34-A 3243 rashly and negligently on 9.1.2005, at Slapar and caused the cruel accident, in which the husband and son of the claimant lost their lives.

5. The claim petition was resisted by the insurer appellant and the driver, respondent No. 2, on the grounds taken in the memo of objections.

6. The following issues were framed by the Tribunal on 5.7.2005:

"(1) Whether Sumit Pal Singh died due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti car No. HP 34-A 3243 by respondent No. 1? ...OPP

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

(3) Whether respondent No. 2 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? ...OPR2

(4) Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of insurance policy, as alleged? ...OPR2

(5) Relief."

7. The claimant Kulwant Kaur has examined two witnesses in support of her case and also appeared in the witness-box. The driver Jasbir Singh appeared himself as a witness and the insurer appellant has examined one witness in support of its case.

8. Claims Tribunal, after examining the pleadings and scanning the evidence, came to the conclusion that the claimant has proved the case and awarded a meagre amount to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation and saddled the insurer with the liability.

9. The appellant insurer has not questioned the findings recorded on all issues except so far as it relates to the maintainability of the claim petition. However, I deem it proper to discuss the findings returned by the Tribunal issue-wise.

Issue No. 1:

10. The claimant has proved by leading oral as well as documentary evidence that the driver Jasbir Singh has driven the offending vehicle, Maruti car, rashly and negligently on 9.1.2005 and caused the accident at Slapar, in which Inder Singh Arora, the husband of the claimant, and Sumit Pal Singh, the son of the claimant, lost their lives. There is no rebuttal to the said evidence. Accordingly, the findings returned on issue No. 1 are upheld.

11. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issue Nos. 3 and 4.

Issue Nos. 3 and 4:

12. Learned counsel for the appellant has not argued on these issues. However, I have gone through the findings recorded qua these issues. The insurer-appellant has failed to lead evidence to prove that the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle, Maruti car. Even it has failed to prove that the vehicle was being driven in contravention of the