Judgment Vinod Chatterji Koul, J.—United India Insurance Company Limited – appellant herein, is aggrieved of and seeks quashment of Award dated 25th September 2009, given by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Leh (for brevity “Tribunal”) on a claim petition, being File no.13/claim, titled Union of India v. Reyaz Ahmad Tabedar and others, saddling appellant Insurance Company with liability to indemnify insured and pay compensation of Rs.16,96,333/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization, on the grounds mentioned in the Appeal. 2. A claim petition was filed by respondent no.1 before the Tribunal on 26th August 2005, in which it was averred that an accident took place on 13th June 2002 at 1805 hours near TCP Budkharbu AWD 852 Field Workshop Company, due to rash and negligent driving by driver of offending vehicle (Truck bearing Registration no.JK03/4718). The vehicle is stated to have broken boundary pillars and fencing wire of Army workshop and hit two army vehicles, which were parked there and caused damage to vehicles for an amount of Rs.1,96,333/-. FIR is stated to have been lodged with police station Kargil and challan was produced before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kargil. 3. Upon presentation of claim petition before the Tribunal, notices were issued to respondents. Initially, driver of vehicle was set ex parte and later owner and Insurance Company were also set ex parte vide order dated 18th February 2006 and consequently the case was posted for recording ex parte statement of witnesses of claimant/respondent no.1. One witness was adduced by respondent no.1 before the Tribunal. However, an application was made by appellant Insurance Company before the Tribunal for withdrawing ex parte proceedings, which was allowed by the Tribunal and as a result whereof written statement was filed. Appellant Insurance Company insisted that it was bounden duty of claimant to inform Insurance Company about alleged occurrence so that necessary steps could have been taken for assessment of loss, but since claimant failed to inform Insurance Company about occurrence and has itself assessed the loss without proper inspection of appellant Insurance Company, which was not warranted under law. It is asserted that on receipt of loss, appellant Insurance Company deputed Shri H.S. Mehta, Surveyor and Loss Assessor and valuer, to conduct the spot survey/ assessment of offending vehicle. It is asserted that on receipt of loss, appellant Insurance Company deputed Shri H.S. Mehta, Surveyor and Loss Assessor and valuer, to conduct the spot survey/ assessment of offending vehicle. It was also averred by appellant Insurance Company that during spot survey, aforenamed Surveyor inspected damaged vehicle and it was found that vehicle had sustained very minor damages. Insurance Company is stated to have been duty bound to get loss assessed by licensed IRDA Surveyor, as was required under the Insurance Act, in respect of damaged vehicles. The surveyor is said to have made assessment of damaged vehicle and worked out net damage as Rs.95,396/-. 4. Tribunal, in view of pleadings of parties, on 4th October 2006 framed following Issues: 1. Whether Army vehicle ALSMK-II Recovery BANDOIPO13875L was hit by civil truck no.JK03/4718 on 13.6.2006 at Budhkharbu near TCP AWD 852 field Work Company due to rash and negligent driving of driver of civil truck no.JK03/4718? OPP 2. If Issue no.1 is proved in affirmative then whether petitioner is entitled to compensation on account damages to army vehicle, if yes then how much and from whom? OPP 3. Whether accident took place due to contributory negligence of both vehicles? OPR3 4. Whether petitioner has violated terms of policy, if yes, then what is its effect on claim petition? OPR3 5. Whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition beyond Rs.6000/- as per provision of M.V. Act? OPR3 5. File also reveals that from 5th October 2006 onwards, a number of witnesses were adduced by respondent no.1 before the Tribunal. By impugned Award, Tribunal directed appellant Insurance Company to pay compensation in the amount of Rs.16,96,333/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of claim petition till its realization. It is this Award of which appellant is aggrieved and seeks its quashment. 6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter. I have gone through record of the Tribunal as also impugned Award. 7. According to learned counsel for appellant, vehicle of respondent no.1 was stationed at workshop of respondent no.1, when it was hit by offending vehicle bearing Registration no.JK03/4738, and impact could not have caused damaged what has been alleged by respondent no.1 in the claim petition, and it was specifically pleaded by appellant Insurance Company that damage against third party was covered under Insurance policy for statutory requirement for an amount of Rs.6000/-. Tribunal is said to have erred in law by ignoring pleadings of appellant to this extent which was strictly in accordance with provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. It is admitted that Tribunal has jurisdiction to overwrite limitation but it can be only in case respondent no.1 would have pleaded and led evidence before Tribunal, establishing thereby that liability of appellant could not be restricted to Rs.6000/- only towards property damaged by further establishing by sufficient evidence that appellant, in terms of insurance contract, had agreed to indemnify insured/ respondent no.2 for a higher amount, above Rs.6000/-, to a limit agreed under Insurance contract against any claim raised against him by respondent no.1 for damage to property of a third party. It is only after establishing this fact by evidence, Tribunal could have passed award for an amount higher than Rs.6000/- subject to a maximum limit as has been agreed by appellant under insurance contract towards third party property damage but respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 have failed to establish before Tribunal by adducing sufficient evidence that appellant Insurance Company had agreed to indemnify respondent no.2 against any third property damage for amount more than Rs.6000/- and, therefore, impugned Award is liable to be set-aside. Learned counsel has also stated that once compensation to the tune of Rs.16,96,333/- was claimed by respondent no.1, it was required to prove by sufficient, cogent and documentary evidence the actual loss caused to vehicle, which they have miserably failed to do before Tribunal. 8. Learned counsel for appellant further contends that in claim petition, respondent no.1 has pleaded that by accident, vehicle was treated as inferior vehicle and its damaged value reduced to 25% of actual value and even during evidence before Tribunal they did not examine any assessor to prove actual damage caused to vehicle except by examining a few witnesses, who have not examined the vehicle themselves and no question of making any assessment of loss of damaged vehicle, but their statements have been only based on routine official paper work whereunder the cost of vehicle had been reduced to 25% of the original cost and therefore by reducing 25% of the actual cost of vehicle, respondent no.1 has raised the claim on presumption before the Tribunal without any supporting evidence. 9. 9. Learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company maintains that even if appellant did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal but a legal duty was cast upon the Tribunal to decide claim petition on strength of evidence produced before it by respondent no.1 and that respondent no.1 was able to prove only factum of accident but failed to prove damage caused to vehicle in the accident. Mere reduction of value of vehicle on papers of respondent no.1, which is a routine official work, should not have prompted the Tribunal to allow claim petition for Rs.16,96,333/- as there was no evidence of respondent no.1 on record, which would suggest that vehicle was actually damaged to the extent of Rs.16,96,333/-. It is maintained that photographs of damaged vehicle taken by licensed surveyor at the time of inspection of vehicle were annexed with written statement by appellant Insurance Company before the Tribunal, which would give clear picture of nature and extent of damage caused to vehicle and the same would not be more than Rs.80,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-, even if major repairs were to be done on the vehicle. This piece of evidence is stated to have been ignored by Tribunal and has not been replied by respondent no.1. Fixation of quantum of compensation, according to learned counsel, is without any evidence and is based on notions, which have been drawn on papers by respondent no.1 and wrongly accepted by Tribunal. His further submission is that Tribunal should have either dismissed claim petition, being without any evidence or in alternative should have directed appellant Insurance Company to get the loss assessed or directed respondent no.1 to get vehicle examined and actual damage assessed by any agency. Learned counsel stoutly avers that appellant is a public sector Corporation and is custodian of public money; it cannot be asked to pay amount under impugned Award for which claimant before Tribunal has not adduced any evidence; besides it is to be asked to pay liability as per agreed terms of insurance contract. 10. Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, has insisted that there is nothing wrong or illegality in impugned Award inasmuch as the Tribunal has given a comprehensive judgement, which need not be interfered with. 11. Given the case set up and submissions made by learned counsel for parties, I have gone through the record of the Tribunal. 10. Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, has insisted that there is nothing wrong or illegality in impugned Award inasmuch as the Tribunal has given a comprehensive judgement, which need not be interfered with. 11. Given the case set up and submissions made by learned counsel for parties, I have gone through the record of the Tribunal. A communication dated 2nd August 2002 was addressed by Capt Wksp Officer for OC, 852 Fd Wksp Coy EME C/o 56 APO, to Presiding Officer ‘B’ Coy, 508 ASC Bn C/o 56 APO, mentioning therein that cost of damage of vehicle BA no.01P013875L ALS MK-III of 14 Corps zone Wksp, is Rs.1,96,333/-. There is also a “Loss Statement” produced by respondent no.1 before the Tribunal, depicting therein loss of Rs.16,96,333/- There is also a communication dated 5th October 2005, addressed by appellant Insurance Company to Shri H.S. Mehta (Surveyor & Loss Assessor), asking him to conduct survey of Army vehicle and inform approximate amount of liability at the earliest. Copy of said communication was also endorsed to Commanding Officer, 14 Corps Zone Workshop C/o 56 APO with a request to provide cooperation to Surveyor. 12. The record of Tribunal also reveals that a communication dated 1st August 2006, was addressed by Surveyor, Shri H.S. Mehta, to Commanding Officer, 14 Corps Zone Workshop C/o 56 APO, requesting him to furnish documents, i.e. estimate of loss, vehicular documents, driving licence, copy of police report. In response to communication dated 1st August 2018, Major Adjutant for Commanding Officer, 14 Corps Zone Wksp C/o 56 APO, addressed a letter to Surveyor, intimating him that it was not possible to forward the vehicle due to damage to his location and requested Surveyor to send his representative for assessment of damage and documents asked for would be handed over at the location. Another communication dated 19th September 2006, addressed by Major Offg Commanding Officer, 14 Corps Zone Wksp, C/o 56 APO, to aforesaid Surveyor, envisions that xerox copies of documents, viz. claim form duly completed and signed; estimate of damage; loss statement; registration certificate; FIR; sketch of accident; MT accident report. 13. A report of Shri H.S. Mehta, Surveyor, dated 26th September 2006, is also on record. Pertinent excerpt thereof is necessary to be reproduced hereunder: “Cause & Nature of Accident: As narrated to me & as per the police report the insured vehicle bearing Reg. 13. A report of Shri H.S. Mehta, Surveyor, dated 26th September 2006, is also on record. Pertinent excerpt thereof is necessary to be reproduced hereunder: “Cause & Nature of Accident: As narrated to me & as per the police report the insured vehicle bearing Reg. No. JK03-4718 (Truck) lost the balance & got collided with the army vehicle No B.A No: 01P013875L. Resulting into damage to TPPD army vehicle. The insured vehicle also suffered loss in this regard undersigned also submitted the assessment of insured vehicle No JK03-4718. Survey Report:- Under instructions received by me from Sr Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. D.o Regal Chowk, Srinagar to conduct the survey of the TPPD army vehicle which got damaged in accident with the insured vehicle No JK03-4718. The undersigned wrote two three letters to the commanding officer 14 corps zone C/o 56 APO for the proper location of vehicle & the required documents copies of same was endorsed to your good self. After receiving a letter Dt 31.08.2006 from Major Adjutant Shri Rajeev Raina received through post on 15.09.2006. undersigned immediately visited Army workshop 14 corps Zone Leh, where the said TPPD Army vehicle ALS recovery which was lying in its accidental condition. But while going through the inspection of the said vehicle most of the major parts I,e Frt axle assy, Transfer case assy, Left door complete, Cab assy & other parts were found missing from the vehicle, Necessary photographs were taken by me in its accidental condition which are enclosed here along with their negatives. Further the Major Adjutant submitted the loss statement of TPPD vehicle No 01P013875L showing class VI amounting to Rs. 16,96,333.000/= the loss to the vehicle was discussed with Major Adjutant in detail. The photographs taken at the site of accident was also shown to the Major Adjutant in which it clearly depict the loss to the vehicle from L/side. Moreover as per Motor accident report prepared by Shri B.K Yadav MPNCO vide batch no 7771721 A HMV/MP Dt 14.06.2002 clearly shows the loss to the said TPPD vehicle No 01P-13875LRV on L/side cabin & chassis only. Keeping in view the damages as sustained to the TPPD army vehicle same has been assessed for as given in details of assessment. The damages allowed are inconformity with the cause & nature of accident. Keeping in view the damages as sustained to the TPPD army vehicle same has been assessed for as given in details of assessment. The damages allowed are inconformity with the cause & nature of accident. The cost of parts allowed are as prevailing in the market but not more than dealers price list.” 14. From above quoted excerpt of report of Surveyor, it comes to fore that upon having received intimation from appellant Insurance Company, Surveyor, after making communication with respondent no.1, went on the spot and conducted survey/assessment of vehicle in question. It has come up during inspection that most of major parts of vehicle had been found missing. Surveyor had also gone through the Loss-Statement submitted by respondent no.1. The Surveyor has made certain observations in his report, which include that report prepared by Shri B. K. Yadav, MPNCO, vide batch no.7771721 A HMV/MP, clearly showed that loss to vehicle No 01P-13875LRV was on left side cabin and chassis only and keeping in view the damages to vehicle, the same had been assessed as Rs.95,396.00. While making the said assessment, Surveyor has given full description of items/parts that had been damaged and need to be replaced or repaired. However, the Tribunal has, while giving the impugned Award, totally ignored this important piece of evidence on record and without taking into account the report of the Surveyor, granted all that was solicited for by respondent no.1 in claim petition. It may not be out of place to mention here that the Tribunal has not even made a quiet murmur about Report of the Surveyor of appellant-Insurance Company much less taking note thereof. 15. For the reasons discussed above, the Appeal succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. Impugned Award dated 25th September 2009, given by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Leh, on a claim petition, being File no.13/claim, titled Union of India v. Reyaz Ahmad Tabedar and others, is set-aside. As a corollary thereof, claim petition of respondent no.1 is disposed of with a direction to appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs.95,396/- to respondent no.1 along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of claim petition till its realisation. 16. Tribunal record be sent down along with copy of this judgment.