Judgment Bhaskar Bhattacharya, ACJ.—This appeal under the old Motor Vehicles Act is at the instance of a claimant and is directed against an award dated 26th April 1993 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot District at Rajkot in M.A.C. Case No. 643 of 1988, thereby disposing of the proceeding under Section 110(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by awarding a sum of Rs. 15,000/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation with further amount of proportionate cost. 2. Being dissatisfied, the claimant has come up with this appeal for enhancement of the amount. 3. According to the averments made in the claim-application under Section 110(A) of the Act, the claimant was the owner of a Tractor bearing No. GJQ-9868. While the Trailer was standing stationary on Rajkot-Gondal road on the Kachcha border of the road and black soil and road metal were being unloaded from the Trailer on 28th May 1988, a Matador bearing No. GRP-5456 came from the opposite direction and dashed against the said Tractor, as a result the Tractor was severely damaged. According to the appellant, the accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Matador owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with the Respondent No. 3. 4. The appellant claimed that the Tractor was damaged in such a way that it was not repairable. Consequently, he was compelled to sell the Tractor at the price of Rs. 30,000/- and, hence, he had suffered damages and loss of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 5. The claim-application was resisted by the owner of the Matador as well as Insurance Company, thereby specifically asserting that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Tractor, as a result, the accident occurred. According to the respondents, the Tractor was stationary on the wrong-side of the road in violation of the rules and it was driven by an unauthorised person and that in absence of the driver of Tractor, the proceeding was not maintainable. It was specifically denied that there was any rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the Matador. 6. It was specifically denied that there was any rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the Matador. 6. The learned Tribunal below on the basis of the materials on record came to the conclusion that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Tractor and the negligence should be treated to be 50%. According to the Tribunal below, no material was produced showing the actual price at which the Tractor was sold and there was no evidence indicating the price at which the claimant had purchased the Tractor. The Tribunal further observed that no evidence was produced by the applicant showing the year of manufacture of the Tractor and the extent of damage. 7. In spite of the aforesaid findings, the Tribunal on the basis of a panchnama recorded by the Police came to the conclusion that the extent of damages suffered by the Tractor was to the extent of Rs. 30,000/- and in view of his finding of 50% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Tractor, the learned Tribunal below awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. 8. After going through the entire materials on record, I find that the claimant failed to produce any eye-witness of the accident for the purpose of showing the act of negligence on the part of the driver of Matador. Even in spite of specific allegations made by the respondents that it was due to negligent act on the part of the driver of the Tractor that the accident occurred, the claimant did not bring the driver in the witness-box for the purpose of facing cross-examination. 9. Although Mr. Lathiya, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant tried to convince me that in the facts of the present case for non-production of the driver of the Matador, I should draw adverse inference, I am not at all impressed by such a submission for the simple reason that in spite of making an allegation of contributory negligence against the driver of the Tractor, the claimant also did not produce the driver of his own vehicle who was the best witness to testify the negligence of the driver of the Matador. 10. 10. I, therefore, hold that the finding of contributory negligence to the extent of 50% should not be interfered with in the facts of the present case. 11. As regards the quantum of compensation, I find that the claimant failed to produce any evidence showing the price of the Tractor by which he purchased, the year of manufacture, the person to whom he sold the Tractor and the price at which the Tractor was sold. All these facts could easily be established by production of documentary evidence; but for the reason best known to the claimant, he did not produce any of those documents and simply made oral claim which was denied by the respondents by giving specific suggestion to the claimant. 12. I have already pointed out that the sole witness for the claimant was not present at the time of accident and thus, his evidence on the question of negligence of the driver of the Matador cannot be accepted. 13. As regards the statement made in panchnama, the maker of the panchnama has not been examined and as such, the genuineness of the contents of the panchnama cannot be accepted so long the maker thereof does not appear in the witness-box and face cross-examination, particularly when the contents of the said panchnama have been denied. 14. On consideration of the entire materials on record, I am at one with the Tribunal below that in absence of any cogent evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant, he is not entitled to get more than the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 15. I, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and the same is consequently dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be, however, no order as to costs. P P P P P