JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle against the award dated 19.08.2015 passed in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the appellant/owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle was fastened with the liability to pay the compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the claimant/respondent No.1 along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till recovery.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.07.2014 at about 5.00 p.m. the petitioner after watering his buffalo from water tank near village school was returning to his house alongwith his buffalo. It is averred that, in the meantime, a truck bearing registration no. HR-37-C-9735 being driven by respondent no.1 rashly, negligently and in a high speed came from side of bus stand of village Garnala and turned his truck towards petitioner; the petitioner in order to save himself jumped aside, but the respondent no.1 hit his truck against the buffalo, as a result thereof, the buffalo suffered multiple injuries; but the truck driver ran away from the spot alongwith the truck. It is further averred that, thereafter the petitioner took his buffalo to animal hospital, Panjokhra, Tehsil and District Ambala, and the same remained under treatment in the hospital up to 18.07.2014, but ultimately died on 18.07.2014. It is further averred that, postmortem examination of its dead body was conducted by the doctors of animal hospital, Panjokhra, Tehsil and District Ambala. It is further averred that, the petitioner has spent more than Rs.20,000/- on the treatment of buffalo which includes medical expenses, transportation etc. It is further averred that, buffalo of the petitioner was of 'Murrah' variety and same was five year old and used to give milk 10-12 kilograms per day. It is further averred that, petitioner also used to sell milk as well as dung cakes in the market. It is further averred that, the buffalo was source of income of the petitioner and due to its sudden death, the petitioner has become totally unemployed.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents therein appeared and contested the claim petition by filing separate written statement denying the factum of accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 while driving truck bearing registration no. HR-37-C-9735 causing death of buffalo of Rameshwar, the claimant, as alleged? OPP.

2. If issue no.1 is proved, then to what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled to and from whom? OPP.

3. Whether the respondent no.2 is not liable to pay any compensation, in view of the breach of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance? OPR-2

4. Relief”

5. Thereafter, both the parties led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant. However, the respondent No.2-Insurance Company was held liable to pay compensation at first instance and recovery rights were given to respondent No.2-Insurance Company to recover the same from appellant-owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-owner-cum-driver contends that the learned Tribunal has committed error in law in fastening liability upon the appellant to pay compensation on the ground that the driving licence of the claimant was fake. He therefore submits that the liability to satisfy the award ought to have been fastened upon the insurance company, and not upon the appellant-owner-cum-driver. On this grounds, learned counsel prays that t