JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the claimant appellant against the judgment passed by the tribunal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a claim petition before the tribunal with regard to death of buffalo and calf in a road accident which is said to have taken place on 26-7-2009. Thereafter notices were issued; reply was filed; certain issues were framed and after hearing all the parties, the learned tribunal passed the judgment dated 18-4-2011 dismissing the claim petition. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, this appeal has been filed by the claimants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that tribunal has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. He has further contended that the finding of the tribunal is perverse and based on a wrong notion overlooking the settled proposition of law. He has further contended that the learned tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimant appellant was guilty of offence under Section 289, IPC. He has further contended that the Tribunal further erred in overlooking the documentary evidence i.e. charge-sheet in which it was specifically proved that buffalo had died due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 and none of the respondent appeared in the witness box to deny the factum of rash and negligent driving. Hence the impugned judgment passed by the tribunal deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 5. I have heard learned counse for the appellant and carefully perused the impugned judgment. 6. Before entering into the merits of the case, it is necessary to have a look on Section 289, IPC, which is reproduced as under : 289. IPC : Whoever knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any animal in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to himan life, or any probable danger of grievous hurt from such animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both." 7. The claimant appeared in the witness box and examined himself as AW-1. In his cross-examination, he admitted that his buffalo was grazing on Mega-Kota Highway. The claimant appeared in the witness box and examined himself as AW-1. In his cross-examination, he admitted that his buffalo was grazing on Mega-Kota Highway. He further admitted that nearing to it, there is a railway line and after taking out the milk, the buffalo was made free for grazing the field. 8. In this view of the matter, right to let free the domestic animal near National Highway, Mega Highway or State Highway has been prohibited under Section 289, IPC and the appellant himself was negligent for letting free his buffalo for grazing the field. 9. Many a times it has been seen that the cows, buffalo, goats, and other animals are found wandering, grazing, sitting on the road, nearby the road, or crossing the road in absence of their owners, as a result of which accident took place and sometimes untimely death took place. In the instant case, the appellant himself admitted to let free his buffalo to graze the field and he failed to prove this fact that driver of the vehicle was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle. The Insurance Co. has utterly failed to prove that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having the valid and effective driving license nor any specific evidence was adduced by them in this regard. As a result of which the issue No. 3 was rightly decided against the Insurance Co. Albeit the claimant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the death of It his buffalo and calf, but he did not produce the bills. In absence of any cogent and specific evidence with regard to the cost of buffalo and the quantity of milk being given by the buffalo and on the basis of age of the buffalo, as mentioned in the post-mortem report, the tribunal assessed the cost of the, buffalo to be Rs. 25,000/- and partly decided the said issue in favour of claimant, but since negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle could not be proved, as such the tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition. The findings arrived at by the tribunal are found to be just and proper. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the tribunal while passing the impugned judgment. 10. The findings arrived at by the tribunal are found to be just and proper. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the tribunal while passing the impugned judgment. 10. For these reasons, I do not think it just and proper to interfere in the impugned judgment passed by the learned tribunal and thus, the appeal filed by the claimant, being without any substance, is hereby dismissed after confirming the judgment passed by the learned tribunal.Appeal dismissed. *******