JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 11.10.1985 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jodhpur whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 5,143.16 in favour of the appellant-claim- ants and against the respondents. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellants preferred this appeal for enhancement. The respondents No.1 and 2 have also filed the cross-objection challenging the award. 2. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that; on 7.2.1982 while the truck No. RSN 6924 was plying from Jaisalmer to village Sam 0 at that relevant time, a matador No. 80C 29908P came from opposite direction at a great speed and collided with the said truck resulting thereby that the said truck was damaged due to this accident. The case of appellants is that; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving c f the Matador by its driver, respondent No. 3. On the pleading of the parties, learned Tribunal framed the issues while deciding issues No. 1 & 2 the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said accident occurred due to negligent driving of Matador by its driver. While deciding issue of quantum, the Tribunal assessed and awarded the aforesaid compensation in favour of the appellants. 3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal fell in error in awarding a sum of Rs. 5,143.16 as against the total claim of Rs. 15,212.76. He contended that the Tribunal fell in error by not awarding the loss of income for the period during which the said truck remained under repair and, therefore, he contended that the owner of the said truck is entitled for the loss of income sustained for that period. He further contended that after the accident the said truck was brought to Jodhpur for repairing and was repaired at Jodhpur and, therefore, the charges for transporting the damaged truck from place of accident Jaisalmer to Jodhpur a sum of Rs. 1,000/- has been incurred to which the appellants are entitled. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the amount of compensation assessed and awarded by the learned Tribunal needs no interference. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, cross-objector contended that the Tribunal fell in error in deciding the issue Nos. 1,000/- has been incurred to which the appellants are entitled. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the amount of compensation assessed and awarded by the learned Tribunal needs no interference. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, cross-objector contended that the Tribunal fell in error in deciding the issue Nos. I & 2 against them as the accident was resulted of rash and negligent driving of truck by its driver. 5. I have perused the record and gone through the statements of PW-1 Kalu Ram, PW-2 Iccha Lal and PW-5 Dhan Raj and also perused the photographs of the accident placed on record. From the unrebutted testimony of these witnesses, it is amply "established that the driver of the said Matador was rash and negligent in driving the Matador which resulted in the aforesaid accident. I find no reason to take a different view than the one taken by learned Tribunal, while deciding the issue of negligence and therefore, finding of issues No.1 & 2 call for no interference and accordingly it is hereby affirmed. 6. Next comes what should be compensation in the instant case. The appellants have established by placing on record the bills for repair of the said truck Ex.1 to 7 which amounts to Rs. 5,143.16. From the statement of PW-1 Kalu Ram, it has also been established that for about 17 to 18 days the Truck remained under repair and could not be plied by its owner for which the owner of the vehicle sustained loss of income at the rate of Rs. 350/- per day. Testimony of this witness is further corroborated by the bills, issued by the various agencies who have repaired the truck varying from 13.2.1982 to 24.2.1982. Moreso, this witness was not cross-examined on this material point which he deposed in examination-in-chief and therefore, necessary corollary is that respondents do not want to challenge that part of version which has been deposed by the witness in examination-in-chief. Thus, it must be taken to be truthful. So far as expenses incurred for taking photographs is concerned, in my considered opinion, taking of photographs was not necessary for the purpose of repairing the vehicle and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for the expenses incurred on account of photography of the vehicle. 7. Thus, it must be taken to be truthful. So far as expenses incurred for taking photographs is concerned, in my considered opinion, taking of photographs was not necessary for the purpose of repairing the vehicle and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for the expenses incurred on account of photography of the vehicle. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of this Court Union of India v. Ratal Lal reported in 1988 ACJ 992 wherein this Court awarded compensation for the damaged vehicle which remained idle during the period for which it remained under repair. A similar view has been taken by Karnataka High Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation & Ann v. V.K. Abdul Majeed & Ors., 1991 ACJ 453 and by Bombay High Court in Karnataka State Road Transport v. Pishori Lal, 1993 ACJ 778. In my considered opinion the appellants are entitled for the compensation for a period of 17 days during which the truck owned by the appellants remained under repair at the rate of Rs. 350/- per day which comes to 350 x 17 = Rs. 5,950/-. It has also been established from the testimony of PW- 1 that he has incurred Rs. 1,000/- for transporting the damaged truck from Jaisalmer to Jodhpur. This part of statement of claimant also remained unchallenged as the respondents did not cross-examine this-witness on this material point also. In this view of the matter, the claimant is entitled for additional sum of Rs. 1,000/- for transportation of damaged truck from Jaisalmer to Jodhpur. Thus, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 12,093 (5143.16 + 5,950 + 1,000) rounded to Rs. 12,000/-. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 57/86 filed by the appellants, the owner of the truck, is allowed and the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 5,143/- to 12,000/- with interest at the rate and from the date allowed by the Tribunal. The cross-objection filed by the respondents-Union of India is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal Allowed. *******