R. B. DIXIT, J. ( 1 ) FEELING aggrieved by the award dated 28-8-98, passed in Claim Case No. 51/98 of Ist Addl. Claims Tribunal Morena, whereunder, the compensation of Rs. 20,500/- has been awarded to respondent No. 1, appellant/owner of offending vehicle, has filed this appeal for setting aside the aforesaid award. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 Lokman Singh had filed the Claim petition u/s. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, for damage caused to Tractor No. M. P. 06/5046 in an accident by appellant Bus No. R. J. 14/p1104. It is alleged that on 20-1-94, when claimant's tractor was parked near the road, the driver of bus dashed the bus against tractor by rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the bus, with the result tractor was destroyed into pieces. ( 3 ) THE reply was filed on behalf of appellant that the driver of tractor was rash or negligent, with the result, tractor suddenly emerged on the road from the field side and when the driver of the bus tried to save the tractor, it reammed against a tree of the road side. ( 4 ) THE learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place on account of rash or negligent driving of bus and allowed compensation according to the impugned award. ( 5 ) AS against the evidence produced on behalf of claimants, no evidence has been produced on behalf of appellant, in the circumstances, the findings of Tribunal regarding accident taking place on account of rash or negligent driving of bus driver are proper and justified. What is disputed on behalf of appellant is that the application itself is not maintainable as the owner of tractor does not fall within the category of third party envisaged under the provisions of Section 165 or 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. I am of the opinion, that the owner ofthe tractor is third party for the purpose of present accident as it is alleged by him that the offending vehicle i. e. bus has caused damage to the tractor. I am of the opinion, that the owner ofthe tractor is third party for the purpose of present accident as it is alleged by him that the offending vehicle i. e. bus has caused damage to the tractor. The question of maintainability in such accident was also raised in a Division Bench decision of Allahabad Court in the case of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Naresh Prasad reported in (1996) All CC 77, wherein, it has been pointed out that in a head on collision between tractor and bus, resulting in damage to the tractor and injuries to the tractor driver and where the tractor was owned by father of joint family, the claim brought by son is maintainable. ( 6 ) IN so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant has invited attention to certain observation of the Tribunal made in para 13 of the award, wherein, it has been mentioned that claimant has filed certain receipts Ex. p/12 to p/20, which are false or fake in order to obtain false claim. I am of the opinion that this observation has only been made on the ground that such receipts are not proved by any evidence. so where part of documents not found proved by evidence, it does not mean that the entire calim is false or baseless. However, the learned Tribunal has disallowed that part of the compensation or the documents which are not proved by evidence. It is further argued that the learned Tribunal had erred in relying upon the evidence of Gajendra Prasad Lavania (AW1) who has merely surveyed the damaged tractor. He has assessed the damge without any foundation. In cross-examination therefore, he has admitted that the market value assessed by him, may be more or less. His assessment of the damage seems to be on the ground of cash memos shown to him by the owner of tractor. ( 7 ) I am of the opinion that since the cash memos are filed and proved by Prakash (AW2) and since there is no other evidence in rebuttal against this witness, there is no reason to disbelieve his statement regarding costs of damage. ( 7 ) I am of the opinion that since the cash memos are filed and proved by Prakash (AW2) and since there is no other evidence in rebuttal against this witness, there is no reason to disbelieve his statement regarding costs of damage. Since the learned Tribunal has allowed the compensation only to the extent of damage caused to the tractor, there is nothing wrong in the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal regarding costs of repairs, seems to have been actually spent on it by the owner of tractor. ( 8 ) TAKING into consideration the facts and circumstances and the evidence as brought on record, no justifiable ground is made out to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal regarding the amount of compensation also. ( 9 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .