JUDGMENT :

Rajnesh Oswal, J.

The appellant-insurance company has filed the present appeal impugning the award dated 28.08.2017 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Kathua (hereinafter to be referred as the Tribunal) in claim petition bearing No. 85/2014 titled “Bishamber Singh vs. Anil Khanna & Ors”, by virtue of which the appellant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- along with pendente lite as well as future interest at the rate of 7% per annum till its realisation.

2. The award has been impugned primarily on the following grounds:

(i) That the driver of the offending vehicle was having a fake licence.

(ii) That the appellant had submitted the list of witnesses before the tribunal and had even deposited the diet expenses but the learned tribunal without giving any opportunity to the appellant herein, closed the evidence and passed the impugned award.

(iii) That the learned tribunal without there being any documentary evidence on record, on the basis of probability, fixed the cost of each cattle at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- which is exorbitant.

3. Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the appellant was not under obligation to indemnify the insured, particularly when the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle with a fake licence and further that the learned Tribunal was not afforded opportunity to lead evidence, particularly when the appellant- Insurance Company had submitted the list of witnesses and had deposited the diet expenses. He further argued that the quantum of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- per cattle is exorbitant.

4. Per contra Mr. Anil Khajuria, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2/owner argued that assuming though not admitting that the driving licence of the respondent No. 3 was fake still respondent Insurance Company has not lead any evidence that the respondent No. 2 employed the respondent No. 3 as a driver despite having knowledge that he was having a fake licence. He further submitted that the respondent No. 2 has filed affidavit before the learned tribunal that he had employed the respondent No. 3 as his driver on the basis of the licence and there was nothing to disbelieve the genuineness/ validity of the licence.

5. Heard and perused the record.

6. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that the claim petition was filed by the respondent No. 1 alleging therein that a vehicular accident was caused by the vehicle bearing No. HR55-9788 on 10.01.2014 at Jagatpur Morh (RTO office), Lakhanpur, Tehsil and District Kathua and in the said accident, two mulching buffaloes and one mulching cow received fatal injuries. The respondent-insurance company filed the response and on the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed.

(i) Whether an accident occurred on 10.01.2014 at Jagatpur Morh (RTO office), Lakhanpur, National Highway, Tehsil and District Kathua, within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Lakhanpur, by rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No. HR55-9788, by its driver respondent No. 2 as a result of which two milching buffaloes and one milching cow of petitioner received fatal injuries? (OPP)

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

(iii) Whether the respondent No. 2, driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and whether there was any violation of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance? If so, to what effect? (OPR-3)

(iv) Relief?

7. The petitioner besides examining himself, examined Ramesh Singh as his witness, whereas the respondents did not lead any evidence. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record passed the award impugned.

8. The first contention of the appellant is that respondent No. 3 was having a fake licence and the Tribunal has deprived the appellant of its right to lead