JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the award dated May 7, 1985 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, allowing compensation of Rs. 31,000 with interest, at the rate of 10% per annum to the claimants. Out of the aforesaid amount, the Insurance Company has been held liable for Rs 2,000 only. 2. The accident took place on February 28,1981 on the Jodhpur-Bilara road between two trucks-(1) No. RJQ 2467 belonging to the claimant and driven by Amra Ram and (2) No. RSY 6829 belonging to Rashid Khan respondent No. 2 and driven by Amar Chand, respondent No. 1. The claim petition was filed by Chunnilal and Motiram owners of the truck No. RJQ 2467, for compensation of damages sustained by their truck, in the accident. 3. The Tribunal, by the award dated May 7, 1985, has awarded a sum of Rs. 31,000 as compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal has also allowed interest at the rate of 10% per annum. The liability of the Insurance Company was limited to Rs. 2,000 only. The Tribunal has held that the accident was on account of the fault of Amar Chand, driver of truck No. RSY 6829, belonging to Rashid Khan. According to the Tribunal, Amar Chand was driving the truck rashly and negligently. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the appellants have filed the present appeal, for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the award under appeal. Mr. Rathore submits that the quantum awarded by the Tribunal is quite inadequate. The Tribunal should have allowed the amount of the bills Ex. 4 to 25 also. I have considered the submissions but find myself unable to agree with the same. The Tribunal has held that the claimant could prove damage to the truck to the extent of Rs. 3,100 only, but failed to establish that the amount mentioned in the various bills i. e. Ex. 4 to 25 was also spent in the repairs of the truck. My attention in this connection was invited by the counsel for the appellants, to the statement of Mr. Chunnilal who has stated:- to quote : "mainey truck theek karayi. Uski maramat tatha samaan adi ke bill pradarsh 4 se pradarsh 25 hai." 5. In my view, the aforesaid statement of Mr. My attention in this connection was invited by the counsel for the appellants, to the statement of Mr. Chunnilal who has stated:- to quote : "mainey truck theek karayi. Uski maramat tatha samaan adi ke bill pradarsh 4 se pradarsh 25 hai." 5. In my view, the aforesaid statement of Mr. Chunni Lal is not sufficient to prove the fact that the entire material purchased by him through these bills was spent in the repairs of the truck. Significantly, the dealers from whom the goods were purchased, were not examined as witnesses to prove the aforesaid bills. The mechanics who repaired the truck have also not been produced. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the claimant could prove damage to the extent of Rs. 3,100 only and that he could not establish the fact that the amount represented by the bills Ex. 4 to 25 was also spent in the repairs of the truck. I agree with the finding of the Tribunal. 6. Accordingly, I find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.The parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal *******