IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. J U D G M E N T S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.2090/2000. Rajasthan Stae Road Transport Corporation. Versus. Shri Jodha Singh & Others. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the M.A.C.T. Act, against the award dated 21.9.2000 passed by the Judge, M.A.C.T Dholpur in Claim No.100/93 (Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Jodha Singh & Others.)by which the Tribunal has awarded of Rs.4848/-. Date of Judgment ::: 24th March,2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.S.CHAUDHARI. Mr. Virendra Agarwal for the appellant. Mr.G.P.Kaushik for the respondent No.2. Mr.Ashok Singh Shekhawat for respondent No.4. ..2.. BY THE COURT : This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the award dated 21.9.2000 passed by Judge, MACT, Dholpur in Claim No.100/93 (Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Jodha Singh & Others by which the tribunal awarded claim of Rs.4848/-. Brief facts of the case are that on 4.11.1991 respondent No.1 while driving Truck No.RJU 3578 collied with appellant's Bus No.RNP-7 and caused damage to the Bus. This truck is owned by respondent No.2 & 3 and insured by respondent No.4, hence, appellant claimed compensation. Respondent No.1, 2 & 3 did not appear and respondent No.4 filed reply and raised many objections and pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of truck driver and ..3.. further pleaded that respondent is liable only to the extent of liability as prescribed in the policy and prayed for dismissal of claim petition. After recording evidence, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.4848/- against which, this appeal has been filed. Name of respondent No.1 was deleted. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant was entitled to compensation to the extent of damage caused to the Bus as well as loss of earning during period of repairs of Bus, even then learned Tribunal has committed error in awarding only Rs.4848/- as compensation. Hence, appeal may be accepted and awarded amount may be ..4.. enhanced whereas learned counsel for the respondents submitted that compensation has been awarded to the extent of loss caused by accident, hence, appeal may be dismissed. Learned tribunal has discussed evidence at length in judgment and has rightly come to the conclusion that appellant is entitled to get compensation only to the extent of Rs.4848/-. As per mechanical inspection report Ex.5, there was only some damages in the front side of bus and on account of that damage Rs.4848/- has been awarded. P.W.1 Inder Singh has stated in his statement that in repairing front glass expenses of Rs.4848/- was incurred. No doubt, he has stated in his reexamination in chief that many other damages were also caused in the bus, but he has admitted that at the time of accident he was not travelling in the Bus. In ..5.. such circumstances, his statement cannot be believed. Statement of A.W.2 Rajveer Singh who was driving bus at the time of accident also cannot be believed in the light of mechanical inspection report which reveals that only some damage was caused to Roadways Bus. In such circumstances, repair charges as shown in the Job Card Ex.10 to Ex.14 cannot be awarded to the appellant and learned tribunal has not committed error in restricting the award only to the extent of damage caused to the Bus by accident. As far compensation for the period during which bus could not be used for want of repairs, learned tribunal has rightly disallowed claim on the basis of citations mentioned in award. Learned counsel for the appellant could not placed any citation to substantiate his arguments that appellant is ..6.. entitled to get even damages for the period for which bus could not be used for want of repairs. Looking to the damage, 37 days could not have been taken in repairing bus. Hence, in the light of above discussion, appellant is not entitled to get compensation as claimed and the compensation awarded by learned tribunal is just and proper. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. (K.S.CHAUDHARI)J. K.