JUDGMENT S.K. Kar, J. 1. In this case, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 29.4.1999 passed in MAC Case No. 32/98 by the Member, MACT, Golaghat. 2. Briefly stated, the appellant filed a case against the owner, driver and Insurer of Offending Vehicle (truck) No. AS-01/D-1428, alleging that on 16.5.1997 at about 2 p.m. at Rongamati National Highway 37, the offending vehicle (truck) dashed against and destroyed the shop house belonging to him and police registered a case as Dergaon P.S. Case No. 107/97, under Sections279/338/427/304-A of IPC. The Claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 1,25,000 only and interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of accident. 3. The case was contested by the present respondent-Opposites Party No. 3, the National Insurance Co. Ltd. The Opposite Party-respondent denied the allegations, but admitted insurance cover of the offending vehicle No. AS-01/D-1428 (truck). During trial, the Claimant examined himself on oath and he was cross-examined by the Opposite Party and he had also filed an estimate (Ext. 1) from the Circle Officer giving an assessment of the damage of the shop to the extent of Rs. 50,950.00. 4. The learned Member, Tribunal, however, on consideration of the evidence, came to a finding that any document relied upon by the Claimant not being proved he is not entitled to any relief. 5. I have heard both sides and perused the relevant materials (LCR was called for and received). The Claimant as PW1, has deposed on oath that he had a shoe store and one truck was coming from Jorhat side by National Highway on 16.5.1997 and dashed against the Shop and damaged the entire shop house. The Claimant, accordingly suffered a loss of Rs. 1,25,000. He was cross-examined, but nothing important was brought out to discredit him as a witness. There being no other evidence to the contrary the oral testimony adduced on oath by the Claimant has remained un-controverted. On the other hand, it may be stated that whatever may be the evidence given by PW 1, there is no evidence to the contrary to deny the fact that there was an accident as stated by the Claimant. That being the position, the claim of the Claimant cannot be rejected. 6. On the other hand, it may be stated that whatever may be the evidence given by PW 1, there is no evidence to the contrary to deny the fact that there was an accident as stated by the Claimant. That being the position, the claim of the Claimant cannot be rejected. 6. Coming to the question of quantum of damage of shop, the evidence adduced to prove the extent of damage is not a legal evidence and the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the same. But the statutory liability of the Insurer to pay the damage to the extents of Rs. 6,000 as per Sub-section 2(b) of Section 147 of the MV Act, 1988 has remained undisturbed, because of the pleadings of the respondent-Opposite Party admitted insurance cover of the offending vehicle. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is set aside. The respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6,000 within 30 (thirty) days from the date of this order, failing which future simple interest @ 10% per annum will be paid. Pendent life interest will be @ 9% simple interest per annum. Appeal allowed