R.S. VERMA, J.—This appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Jodhpur (hereinafter called the Tribunal) dated 7.10.86 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 102/84 whereby the claim of the appellant has been granted to the tune of Rs. 9,600/-. The claimant had originally claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 1/ 8,485/-. The learned Tribunal partly accepted this claim and the appellant has come in appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 2. Briefly stated the case of the claimant-appellant is that on 29.8.84 at about 3.45 p.m., he was driving a tonga on the public road at Jodhpur situated in front of Bungalow No. C 27. Certain passengers were sitting in the tonga. All of a sudden, a jeep RRT 6020 came from the wrong side and collided with the horse and tonga of the claimant-appellant. The horse fell down on the spot and the passengers were also thrown out of the tonga. The tonga was also damaged. The horse was seriously injured and died on the spot. The claimant-appellant also sustained certain bodily injuries. The aforesaid jeep was being driven by the respondent Om Prakash, who tried to run away from the scene of the accident but was caught hold of by certain people. A report of this accident was lodged with police chowki Jaswant Sarai The case of the claimant-appellant is that Om Prakash was driving his jeep rashly and negligently which resulted in the aforesaid accident. The jeep was owned by respondent no. 2 Purushottam Prakash. The claimant, inter alia, claimed Rs. 8000/- on account of the value of the horse, who had died on the spot. He claimed Rs. 3000/- on account of expenses incurred by him on the repair of the tonga. He claimed a loss of income for a period of ten years due to deprivation of the use of tonga because he was not in a position to purchase a new horse. He claimed Rs. 3000/- an account of treatment of personal injuries and Rs. 30,000/- for bodily pain sustained due to injuries. 3. He claimed a loss of income for a period of ten years due to deprivation of the use of tonga because he was not in a position to purchase a new horse. He claimed Rs. 3000/- an account of treatment of personal injuries and Rs. 30,000/- for bodily pain sustained due to injuries. 3. The claim was resisted on behalf of the driver as well as the owner of the jeep by filing a joint written statement to the claim, wherein they denied that accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of jeep No. RRT 6020 by Om Prakash. It was denied that Om Prakash was driver of the jeep in question but it was admitted that the jeep belonged to Purushottam. It was pleaded that the tonga was over-loaded and the horse driving the torna was old and infirm and had fallen down because of the infirmity of the horse. Both the respondents denied that they were liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. 4. The learned Tribunal framed proper issues and after due trial, awarded Rs. 9,600/- to the claimant. The rest of his claim was rejected. 5. In the memo of appeal, a number of grounds have been raised but learned counsel for the appellant Shri I. R. Chaudhary confines his claim to the full price of the horse, apart from the compensation already awarded. His contention is that the appellant had proved by cogent evidence that he had purchased the horse for a sum of Rs. 8,000/- from P. W. 4 Balji vide receipt Ex. P/13. He submits that the learned Tribunal was wrong in holding that the claimant had failed to establish that the price of the horse was Rs. 8,000/-. Learned Tribunal erroneously held that the receipt was passed after 2\ months of the accident. Actually, the receipt had been passed 2 and Half months prior to the accident, at the time the horse had been purchased by the claimant. The learned Tribunal awarded only Rs 5,000/- on account of the value of the horse and this amount deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 8,000/-. 6. Respondents have not appeared before me inspite of service to oppose the appeal and hence, I did not have the advantage of hearing them or their counsel. 7. I have given my earnest consideration to the arguments raised by Shri 1. 8,000/-. 6. Respondents have not appeared before me inspite of service to oppose the appeal and hence, I did not have the advantage of hearing them or their counsel. 7. I have given my earnest consideration to the arguments raised by Shri 1. R. Chaudhary and have also perused the record of the learned Tribunal. Receipt Ex. P/I3 dt. 13.6.84 has been passed by Balji in favour of Ganesh, who has been described as Ganji s/o Daya Ram in this receipt. This receipt recites that a sum of Rs. 8,000/- have been received in cash on account of the price of the hosre sold by Balji to Ganji aforesaid. This receipt has been proved by P. W. 4 Balji, who has categorically deposed that he had sold his horse to Ganesh. However, he has said that he had received Rs. 8,500/- as the price of the horse. He has stated that a receipt had been passed regarding the amount paid to him. There is no cross-examination worth the name on this aspect of the matter and hence, there is no reason to doubt the statement of Balji. The statement of Balji amply supports the statement of claimant Ganesh, who has categorically stated that he had purchased the horse for Rs. 8,000/- and had obtained receipt Ex. P/13. I have gone through the cross examination of Ganesh and I find that not a single question has been put to him on this aspect of his evidence. 8. The accident took place on 29.8.84 i.e. about after 2 and Half months of the purchase of the horse by the claimant. The date of the accident is proved by the F. I. R., certified copy whereof has been placed on the record of the Tribunal and has been marked Ex. 1. 9. From the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that the horse in question had been purchased by Ganesh 2 and Half months prior to the accident and he had obtained a receipt for the same at the time of purchase. Learned Judge of the Tribunal has mis-read this evidence and has erroneously stated: ^^?kksM+s dh dher dh iqf"V esa izkFkhZ us tks jlhnkr izLrqr dh gS og 13-6-1984 dh gS ;kfu ,DlhMsaV gksus ds ek= <+kbZ eghus ckn dh gSA I, therefore, find that the finding on this point of the learned Judge of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. 10. Learned Judge of the Tribunal has mis-read this evidence and has erroneously stated: ^^?kksM+s dh dher dh iqf"V esa izkFkhZ us tks jlhnkr izLrqr dh gS og 13-6-1984 dh gS ;kfu ,DlhMsaV gksus ds ek= <+kbZ eghus ckn dh gSA I, therefore, find that the finding on this point of the learned Judge of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the claimant-appellant ought to have been awarded Rs. 8,000/- instead of Rs. 5,000/-on account of the price of the horse. 11. Since compensation pertaining to other items has been abandoned before me except that awarded by the learned Tribunal, the award deserves to be modified and the claimant shall be entitled to recover 12,600/- instead of Rs. 9,600/- with interest at the rate allowed by the Tribunal. 12. The result is that this appeal is accepted as above and the claim of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, is modified as aforesaid. The record of the Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment may be sent expeditiously to the Tribunal.