JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence on record to show that the Truck No. 5646 remained idle on account of the accident so as to entitle the claimant to a compensation of Rs. 12,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The other contention raised is that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal could not have awarded compensation under the head of loss of income of the vehicle simple because the vehicle remained lying under repairs on account of the accident. 3. I have considered the submissions, and have perused the record. In para of the judgment, the learned Tribunal has held that the claimant cannot be believed to the effect that the truck was yielding Rs. 1,0001- per day as no accounts have been produced, and that is also cannot be believed that for each day of the month, the vehicle was yielding income, however, 5 considering the period of time during which the vehicle remained under repairs, a lump sum amount of Rs. 12,0001- has been awarded. A look at the statement of AW-1, the claimant, does show that he has deposed to claim Rs. 3 ,000/- for loss of income from the vehicle and has deposed that the vehicle was yielding net income of Rs. 1000/- per day. True it is that in cross-examination he has deposed that he did not produce any certificate about the vehicle remaining idle. Then AW-2 the mechanic in whose workshop the vehicle was repaired has deposed that the vehicle remained in his garage for repair for a period of more than one month. All that has been suggested to this witness in cross-examination is that he does not maintain a record about 15 entry and exit of the vehicle. However, taking an overall view of these two witnesses, it is reasonable to infer that the vehicle must have remained under repair for the period of around a month and in that view of the matter, the amount of compensation assessed at Rs. 12,000/- cannot be said to be excessive. However, taking an overall view of these two witnesses, it is reasonable to infer that the vehicle must have remained under repair for the period of around a month and in that view of the matter, the amount of compensation assessed at Rs. 12,000/- cannot be said to be excessive. So far as the powers of the Motor Claims Tribunal to award 20 compensation under this head is concerned, this Court in Union of India v. Ratanal, 1988 ACJ 992 so also, the other High Courts in 2002(iii) ACC 374, Haryana State v. Krishan Kumar, 1991 ACJ 453 , Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. V.K. Abdul Majeed , have clearly held that the compensation can be awarded under this head by the Motor Accident Claims 25 Tribunal. In that view of the matter, I do not find any error in the impugned award requiring interference by this Court in appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed summarily.Appeal Dismissed. *******