Judgment :- 1. This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.1997, made in M.C.O.P.No.169 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Sub Court, Kumbakonam. 2. The challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is relating to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, vide judgment dated 30.04.1997, to a tune of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees Seventy five Thousand only). 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the Tribunal, the appeal has been focussed on the main ground that the Tribunal was not justified in awarding a sum of Rs.29,600/-(Rupees Twenty nine Thousand and six hundred only) towards the loss of income for the owner consequent upon the damage caused to the vehicle viz. lorry. 4. The point for consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation towards the loss of income for the owner consequent upon the damage caused to the vehicle. 5. On Point: Placing reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 2000-1-L.W.325 (M.P.Janaki Ammal & Co. v. Dindugal Kottampatti Transport & Another), the learned counsel for the petitioner would develop his arguments to the effect that the cited decision is squarely applicable on the point involved in this case and accordingly he prays for the said sum of Rs.29,600/- awarded to be deleted. An excerpt from the aforesaid decision would run thus: “17. Under these circumstances, I am in entire agreement with the above decisions as the above view has been expressed after interpreting the sections and the intention of the legislation. 18. The other contra judgments reported in 1993 ACJ 778 (Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Pishori Lal) and 1982 ACJ 199 (Sri Ranganathar Transport (P) Ltd., v. Tanjore Co. op. Marketing Federation Ltd.,), rendered by the Single Judge of this Court, may not be of any use to this case, since the ratio has not been decided there. 19. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the claimant/appellant would not be entitled to any other amount except the costs incurred towards the damage to the property. However, it is made clear that on the other heads, the claimant is at liberty to file a civil suit, as Section 110(F) of the Act does not bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of the same.” 6. However, it is made clear that on the other heads, the claimant is at liberty to file a civil suit, as Section 110(F) of the Act does not bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of the same.” 6. A mere perusal of the judgment unambiguously demonstrate that there is absolutely no right on the part of the owner of the vehicle to claim loss of income consequent upon the damage caused to the vehicle in the accident. I had no reason to disagree with the aforesaid decision and I am respectfully in agreement with the view expressed in the cited decision. Accordingly, the amount Rs.29,600/- awarded towards the loss of income for the owner consequent upon the damage caused to the vehicle is deleted. In respect of other sub heads the award warrants no interference. The Tribunal fixed the compensation at Rs.84,263.30 and it reduced it to Rs.75,000/- as the petitioner restricted his claim to Rs.75,000/-. Hence, after deducting Rs.29,600/-from Rs.84,263.30 it comes Rs.54,663.30. Accordingly, after rounding of the same, the award is modified to Rs.54,600/-. (Rupees Fifty four Thousand and Six Hundred only). 7. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.75,000/-(Rupees Seventy five Thousand only) to Rs.54,600/- (Rupees Fifty four Thousand and Six Hundred only). The rate of interest at 12% adopted by the Tribunal is confirmed. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.(MD) No.14150 of 1998 is closed. No costs.