IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.554 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.9.2009 Bhartesh Bohra .....Appellant(s) Versus Surender and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. J.P.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.2030-CII of 2009 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. FAO No.554 of 2009 This is claimant's appeal challenging the impugned award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul whereby the appellant has been granted compensation of Rs.1,17,000/- on account of repairs of the truck in question, on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. In support of his case, the appellant himself appeared as PW-4 and tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PW-4/A stating that the truck in question was completely damaged and he spent Rs.1,25,000/- on its repairs and it remained stationed w.e.f. 8.3.2006 to 15.7.2006 for repairs and he also suffered a loss of Rs.3,00,000/- as he was earning Rs.60,000/- per month from the aforesaid truck. In addition to this, the appellant also claimed that he had to pay expenses of salary to the driver and conductor during this period. The Tribunal on the basis of receipts Ex.PA to Ex.PD, Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and Mark A to Mark B, has assessed the repair charges at FAO No.554 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Rs.1,07,000/- and also granted compensation on account of loss and earning during repair period at Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding that the appellant did not produce any documentary evidence relating to his income from the truck and expenses paid to the driver and conductor except his own statement. On appreciation of evidence, I find that the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal for repairs of the truck is just and adequate. I find no reason to differ with the same. There is no evidence on record on the basis of which the compensation on account of damages to the truck in question can be enhanced. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. September 9, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE