JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant.This appeal is against the award dated 30.10.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim case No. 248/1989 by which the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,72,000/- to the claimants due to the loss suffered by the claimants because of the death of their ancestor Abdul Mazid in the accident which occurred on 2.5.1988 and caused by the driver of the Truck No. RRF 5464. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case there is no eye-witness who witnessed the accident. It is submitted that since it is a case of collusion of two trucks, therefore, the Tribunal should not have held the appellant's driver solely responsible for the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to submit that Abdul Mazid, deceased himself, was driving his truck and he failed to take care to avoid accident. Therefore, also, the appellant cannot be held liable to pay the entire compensation. 3. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 4. It is clear from the facts that the claimants submitted claim petition stating therein that respondent-Bhanwarlal was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and hit the truck of the deceased-Abdul Mazid who was sitting in his truck. It is also stated that respondent-Bhanwarlal came in wrong side and hit the truck. It is true that there is no eye-witness for the incident but at the same time it is relevant that immediately after the accident, FIR was lodged and site was inspected by the police. Copies from the file of the criminal case was produced before the Tribunal and the Tribunal relied upon those documentary evidence. It is clear from the FIR that there is clear mention that one vehicle, in Which the victim was sitting, was lying in stationary position on left side of the road. The truck of the appellant came overtaking another vehicle and hit the vehicle in which Abdul Mazid was there. The site inspection report also discloses the same facts. Neither the respondent No 5, driver of the appellant, nor the appellant himself had courage to give statement on oath to rebut the documentary evidence produced by the claimants. The truck of the appellant came overtaking another vehicle and hit the vehicle in which Abdul Mazid was there. The site inspection report also discloses the same facts. Neither the respondent No 5, driver of the appellant, nor the appellant himself had courage to give statement on oath to rebut the documentary evidence produced by the claimants. Therefore, I do not find any reason to discard the documentary evidence when there is no even word of mouth from the appellant to contradict the documentary evidence. Therefore, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was contributory negligence of Abdul Mazid himself. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal awarded interest @ 12% per annum from 2.11.1988. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant's vehicle was not insured and in view of the recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the interest awarded by the Tribunal @ 12% per annum may be appropriately reduced. 6. I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is partly allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is Modified with respect to the interest only and is held that claimants shall be entitled to the interest @ 9% per annum from 2.11.1988 instead of 12% per annum.Appeal partly allowed. *******