Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—This appeal has been filed by the claimant; Central Reserve Police Force, whose claim petition has been dismissed, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; Dungarpur vide award dated 3.10.1996. 2. The claim petition was filed by the appellant, claiming a sum of Rs.53,596/- as compensation for damages caused to the bus, alleged to be of the appellant, which was hit by the delinquent truck on 5.4.1993, while going from Ahmedabad to Punjab, near Shishod Fala Wagdari by coming on the wrong side. 3. The learned Tribunal decided issue No.1, regarding negligence, in favour of the claimant. Likewise issue No2, about liability of the insurer, was also decided against the insurer. However, while deciding issue No.3 about entitlement to compensation, and the quantum, the learned Tribunal found, that only documents produced on record are Ex.9, 10, 11 and 12, which are the photostat copies of the quotation, repair bill and surveyor report, but then, all these four documents being only photostat copies, and having not even been proved to be the photostat copies of the originals, they are not admissible in evidence; it was also found, that the claimant has failed to establish, by producing any documentary evidence, that the bus, which is said to have been damaged, belongs to the appellant. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the record, in my view, the appeal is devoid of any merit. At the outset, it may be observed, that since it is a case of claim for property damage, and the appellant is a government establishment, rather a department of the government, in whose case, the expenditure is incurred after undergoing enumerable formalities and entries, with the result, that the amount of expenditure actually and precisely incurred by the appellant could very well be established, by leading evidence about incurring of the expenditure, by producing relevant admissible records of the appellant. Even if the vehicle was repaired in the workshop of the appellant, the person in-charge of the workshop could have been produced to prove the amount of labour involved, and then bills of purchase of spares could have been produced. 5. So far as the documents Ex.9 to 12 are concerned, even apart from their admissibility, Ex.9 is only a quotation, quoting a price of Rs.24,900/- for the different items mentioned therein. 5. So far as the documents Ex.9 to 12 are concerned, even apart from their admissibility, Ex.9 is only a quotation, quoting a price of Rs.24,900/- for the different items mentioned therein. Then Ex.10 purports to be a list of various spare parts, mentioning an amount of Rs.7295.47 Paisa. Ought we know, as to whether it is the quotation or the estimate, in any case it does not even purport to be a bill, about the appellant having purchased these articles as mentioned therein, nor is it in the name of the appellant. Then Ex.11 is a bill of Rs.400/- and odd only. So far Ex.12 is concerned, that is a M.T. Technical Inspection Report, which estimates the total damage of Rs.32,596/-. The person, who prepared this report, has not been produced, and on the face of it, it cannot be said to be a document, on the basis of which, the appellant can be said to be entitled to compensation as claimed. It is a different story, that compensation of Rs.53,596/- is claimed, while even this Ex.12 estimates the damages at Rs.32,596/- only. 6. In my view, to say the least, there is absolutely no evidence, oral or documentary, to establish the appellant to be entitled to any of the amounts as claimed in the claim petition. Thus, the learned Tribunal, though for different reasons, cannot be said to be in error in dismissing the claim petition. 7. The appeal thus, has no force and is, therefore, dismissed.