ORDER : 1. This appeal by the Union of India is directed against the award dated 09.01.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 4, West Tripura, Agartala whereby he dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant, Union of India. 2. The claim petition was filed by the Union of India and the Officer Commanding 592(J) TPTPL (GREF) on the allegations that on 29.05.2002 a vehicle belonging to the claimants being TATA 407 bearing registration BA No. 99C 18914 was moving towards Karimganj, a TATA bus (private bus) bearing registration No. AS-10-1849 came from the opposite side was driven rash and negligent manner and hit the vehicle of the claimant, Union of India causing loss to the vehicle and also causing loss to some televisions, photo frames and other glass articles being carried in the vehicle. Some officers and men traveling in the vehicle were also injured. It was claimed that because of the damage the vehicle could not be run for a long time and consequently Rs.12,11,376/- was claimed as compensation. 3. The claim petition was dismissed by the learned Tribunal. On the issue of negligence the learned Tribunal held that since the police case has not been finalised he could not decide who was negligent and therefore, rejected the claim petition. On merits he stated that the estimated had been prepared by the workshop of the claimant-GREEF and the same should have been prepared by the TATA Company and, therefore, he did not rely upon the estimate prepared. 4. I am constrained to observe that both the findings of the learned Tribunal are totally illegal and show that he did not even have knowledge of the basic principles of law. Proceeding under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act are in the nature of an inquiry and not in the nature of a civil suit. The case has to be decided on preponderance of evidence. The claimants, Union of India had examined two witnesses and one of the witnesses was travelling in the vehicle when the accident took place and had clearly stated that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the civil bus. Virtually, no question was put to him in cross-examination except to suggest that he was making a false statement. The FIR had also been lodged against the driver of the civil bus. Virtually, no question was put to him in cross-examination except to suggest that he was making a false statement. The FIR had also been lodged against the driver of the civil bus. The driver of the bus was not examined. The owner of the bus and the insurance company did not take steps to examine any other witnesses. The matter had to be decided on preponderance of evidence. The preponderance of evidence clearly showed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the civil vehicle. Therefore, I hold that the negligence of the drier of the civil vehicle is proved. 5. Next coming to the quantum of compensation. As far as loss of Rs.1,20,280/- is concerned, the two witnesses examined have proved this. No doubt this statement has been prepared by the GREEF but I have personally perused the statement and I find that there are details of each and every part which was damaged and which had to be repaired and after preparing the entire estimate the loss of Rs.1,20,280/- has been assessed. In fact this is only the value of the articles and nothing has been included for the expenses of man power. However, that having not been proved I cannot award the same. 6. On behalf of the claimant it was urged that the cost of the TV’s etc. should also be taken into consideration while assessing the compensation. No evidence worth the name has been led with regard to the TV which were damaged, other than the bald statement of the eye witness there is nothing to show any such loss. All other claims are apparently inflated and cannot be granted. However, loss of damage of Rs.1,20,280/- has been proved to which the Union of India is entitled. On this amount the Union of India shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment amount. 7. Coming to the question of liability of the insurance company. From the insurance policy placed on record by the owner of the vehicle himself, I find that the liability of the insurance company with respect to 3rd party damage is limited to Rs.6000/- only as per the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act. No extra premium has been paid to the insurance company covering extra liability. From the insurance policy placed on record by the owner of the vehicle himself, I find that the liability of the insurance company with respect to 3rd party damage is limited to Rs.6000/- only as per the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act. No extra premium has been paid to the insurance company covering extra liability. Therefore, the insurance company shall only be liable to pay Rs.6,000/- plus interest @ 9% per annum thereupon and the Union of India shall be entitled to recover the balance amount i.e. (Rs.1,20,280.00 – Rs.6000.00) = Rs.1,14,280/- along with interest from the owner and the driver of vehicle namely, Sri Abdul Kalam Azad and Sri Haran Chandra Das who are held jointly and severely liable to pay the aforesaid balance awarded amount with interest. 8. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. Send down the lower Court records forthwith.