JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The Insurer of the offending vehicle, has, instituted the instant appeal before this Court, wherethrough, it, casts a challenge, upon, the award pronounced by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, H.P., upon, Claim Petition No. 5-NL/2 of 2009, whereunder, compensation amount comprised, in, a sum of Rs.3,34,000/- along with interest accrued thereon, at the rate of 9% per annum, commencing from, the date of petition till realization thereof, stood, assessed, vis-a-vis, the claimants, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was, fastened upon the insurer. 2. Without delving, into, the merits of the case, and, upon the merit(s) of an espousal, reared before this Court by the learned counsel for the insurer, for, hence negating, the, fastening, of, the indemnificatory, liability, vis-a-vis, it, (i) the fact germane to the afore espousal, is, comprised in the factum of this Court, while, rendering a pronouncement, upon, FAO No. 269 of 2011, as arose here-before, against, the award pronounced, upon, claim petition No. 5-NL/23 of 2009, titled as Surat Ram and others vs. Ramesh Kumar and others, petition whereof is alike the one, whereupon the impugned award is pronounced, (ii) rather proceeding, after accepting the owner's appeal, to hence remand the matter to the learned tribunal concerned, to render fresh decision(s), upon, the hereinafter extracted issues:- “2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount and from whom the petitioners are entitled for compensation? OPP 4. Whether the vehicle in question was driven in breach of terms and conditions of policy? OPR-3” The relevant portion of the order of remand made by this Court, upon, the afore FAO, reads as under:- “15. Having glance of the above discussion, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No2, partly and issue No.4 are set aside and the case is remanded to the Tribunal below for recording findings afresh on the aforesaid issues. Needless to say, in order to prove issue No.2 (partly) and issue No.4, the tribunal shall afford opportunity to the driver and the owner to file replies and lead evidence. The insurer shall also be afforded opportunity to lead evidence. The Tribunal is directed to conclude the case, as above within three months from 1st July, 2016, on which date, the parties through their respective counsel are directed to cause appearance before the Tribunal.” 3. The insurer shall also be afforded opportunity to lead evidence. The Tribunal is directed to conclude the case, as above within three months from 1st July, 2016, on which date, the parties through their respective counsel are directed to cause appearance before the Tribunal.” 3. A perusal of the zimni orders existing, on the file of the learned tribunal concerned, (i) reveals, that though the insurer was provided sufficient and adequate opportunities to adduce its evidence, upon, the afore issues, nonetheless, it omitted to do so. However, during the pendency of the instant appeal before this Court, the insurer, has cast an application before this Court, under, the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC, application whereof bears CMP No. 1922 of 2017, (ii) wherethrough, it seeks leave of the Court to adduce into evidence, the, Investigator's report, with, an echoing borne therein qua the driving licence held by the driver, of the offending vehicle, being both fake, and, unauthentic. Even though, the afore endeavour, is, belated, and remained un-availed, despite, opportunities being granted by the learned tribunal, upon its receiving the apposite petition, upon, an order of remand made, upon it, by this Court, (iii) yet when for want of leave being granted to the insurer, it would sequel an ill-consequence, of, the apt indemnificatory liability, being prima facie rather standing untenably fastened, upon, the insurer, (iv) thereupon, the granting, of, leave to place on record, the, investigator's report is imperative, hence, for ensuring the rendition of clinching findings, upon, the apt issue, (v) thereupon, the relevant document is both, just and essential for determining the relevant factum probandum. Consequently, CMP No.1922 of 2017 is allowed, in sequel, leave is granted to the insurer, to, place on record, the, investigator's report. 4. Consequently, CMP No.1922 of 2017 is allowed, in sequel, leave is granted to the insurer, to, place on record, the, investigator's report. 4. Since, the investigator's report did not exist, on the file of the learned tribunal, given it standing placed, on record, before this Court, hence, for enabling the learned tribunal, to receive, from the contesting litigants, hence, evidence qua its validity or invalidity, it is deemed fit, to, after quashing the findings, recorded upon issue No.2 and 4, and, upon the relief clause, to remand the matter, to the learned tribunal, (i) with, a direction upon it, to, permit the adduction into evidence, of, the investigator's report, and, to enable its being proven, in accordance with law, (ii) and, to also enable the litigating parties to lead rebuttal evidence, and, thereafter the learned tribunal, is, directed to, pronounce a fresh decision, upon, the aforesaid issues. The aforesaid exercise be done within three months from today. The parties are directed to appear before the learned tribunal, on 4th January, 2019. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.