FAO No.337 of 1992 - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.337 of 1992 Date of Decision: 24.1.2008 Hukam Singh ..Appellant. Vs. Bajrang Lal alias Pappu alias Balaji and others ..Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN * * * Present: Mr.Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. * * * Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.8.1990 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal in MACT Case No.6 of 1988 awarding compensation of Rs.12,000/- on account of damage caused to the tractor-trolley of the appellant. On 25.6.1987, at 6 A.M. accident took place between tractor- trolley bearing registration No.HYL 3008 and a bus bearing registration No.DEP-5674 at one kilometer ahead of Nilokheri towards Karnal. The accident caused damage to the tractor-trolley and multiple injuries to various passengers travelling in it including the deaths of Dhani Ram and Karam Singh. As many as 12 claim petitions were filed by the injured and the dependents of the deceased before MACT Karnal including Claim Petition No.6 of 1988 of the appellant seeking compensation on account of damage caused to the tractor-trolley. All the cases were consolidated and decided by a common judgment dated 20.8.1990 passed by MACT Karnal FAO No.337 of 1992 - 2- vide which a sum of Rs.12,000/- was awarded as compensation on account of damage caused to the tractor-trolley as against the demand of Rs.45,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the compensation awarded is inadequate. The Tribunal should have awarded the amount as prayed in the claim petition. However, nothing has been argued as to how the compensation is inadequate and has to be enhanced. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. The learned Tribunal has taken into account all the relevant factors based upon evidence pertaining to the expenses incurred by the claimant for cultivating the land through some other person, who had charged Rs.6000/- from him vide receipt Ex.P20. Similarly, receipt Ex.P21 has also been taken into consideration which has been relied upon by the appellant-claimant, who had hired some other person for ploughing his fields. All other receipts Ex.P22, Ex.P24, Ex.P28 and Ex.P29 pertaining to the repair of the tractor and trolley even undated, have also been taken into account and from all the receipts Ex.P20, Ex.P21, Ex.P22, Ex.P24, Ex.P28 and Ex.P29, a total amount of Rs.11569.92/- was calculated. However, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/-. In my opinion, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is based upon the evidence led by the appellant-claimant and the Tribunal has awarded just compensation taking into consideration all the receipts vide which the expenses were incurred in respect of repair of actual damage caused to the tractor trolley and for getting the fields of appellant ploughed through some other persons. FAO No.337 of 1992 - 3- Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to find out any fault with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. He could not point out as to on what account the compensation has not been awarded or how the compensation which has been awarded, is inadequate. No other point has been raised before me. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and is, thus dismissed as such. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 24.1.2008 Judge Meenu