JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J —By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition may very kindly be allowed and the impugned award dated 5.5.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P. in CMP No. 96- R/6 of 2017 in Case No. 111-R/2 of 2009, may very kindly be quashed and set aside thereby allowing the application filed by the petitioner to lead the additional evidence in support of its defence with respect to the driving licence of the driver or the Hon''ble Court may please to pass any such or further award which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. Case of the petitioner is that respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground that deceased Rajesh Kumar, husband and son of respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively was travelling in a vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-02-3029 on 15.10.2009 when the said vehicle met with an accident near Nitther, resulting in death of Rajesh Kumar. According to the claimants, the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of driver, namely, Ram Sarar, who also died in the said accident. 3. The claim petition was contested by the present petitioner inter alia on the ground of maintainability as also on the grounds that the vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 4. Upon completion of pleadings, issues were framed by the learned Tribunal. Parties led their evidence. At that stage, the present petitioner could not lead evidence with respect to driving licence of the person who was driving the ill fated vehicle and when verification report with respect to driving licence was received in the second week of November, 2011, it was found that the drivng licence was fake. In this background, an application was filed i.e. application dated 03.12.2011, Annexure P-3, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the present petitioner before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for grant of permission to lead additional evidence in support of its defence. This application was resisted by the claimants. 5. In this background, an application was filed i.e. application dated 03.12.2011, Annexure P-3, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the present petitioner before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for grant of permission to lead additional evidence in support of its defence. This application was resisted by the claimants. 5. By way of impugned order dated 5.5.2017, the application so filed by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal inter alia on the ground that in view of the case law laid by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. National Insurance Company , (2013) AIR(SCW) 6505, even if the application filed by the present petitioner was allowed and even if the petitioner Insurance Company succeeded in proving that at the relevant time, deceased driver was not possessing valid driving licence, the company could not wriggle out of its liability to pay compensation to the third party. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-Insurance Company has filed the present petition. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order as well as the pleadings of the respective parties. 8. A perusal of the application so filed by the petitioner praying for permission to lead additional evidence demonstrates that it intended to examine official witness from the office of RTO, Agra, UP to demonstrate that the driver of the ill fated vehicle, namely, Ram Saran was not possessing a valid driving licence, as the verification of driving licence of said Ram Saran so received demonstrated that driving licence was fake one. In the said application itself, it has been clearly mentioned that the officials witnesses were examined by the petitioner Insurance Company on 12.10.2011. This means that the application to lead additional evidence was not filed at a belated stage or with undue delay, as has been tried to portrayed by learned Counsel for the respondents before this Court. Further a perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that what weighed with the learned Tribunal was that even if the application of the petitioner was allowed and it succeeded in proving that the driving licence possessed by driver of ill fated vehicle in issue was a fake one, even then Insurance Company could not wriggle out from its liability to compensate the third party. In order to come to the said conclusion, learned Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court mentioned above. In my considered view, learned Tribunal could not have had dismissed the application so filed by the present petitioner to lead additional evidence on the ground that even if it succeeded in proving that the driving licence was fake, then also it could not wriggle out of its liability to compensate the third party. Returning such findings by the learned Tribunal on an application so filed to lead additional evidence, in my considered view, amounts to pre-judging of the issue of the liability of Insurance Company. Learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating that the effect of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, referred to supra, was to be gone into by it only at the time of final adjudication of the claim petition. Not only this, as the application to lead additional evidence was not filed at a belated stage, it would have been in the interest of justice, had the same been allowed by the learned Tribunal and after taking the evidence on record, it thereafter could have had adjudicated upon all the issues including the issue of liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify the third party. 9. In view of above, this appeal succeeds. Impugned order dated 05.05.2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr is set aside and application so filed for leading additional evidence is allowed and learned Tribunal is directed to permit the petitioner/Insurance Company to lead additional evidence in support of its defence with regard to driving licence of the driver, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- which shall be paid by the petitioner to respondents/claimants No. 1 and 2. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s) , if any, also stand disposed of.