Hon'ble SINGH, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant-company and perused the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal. 2. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-company is that the learned Tribunal allowed the Claim bearing No.55 of 2008 filed by Lakhi Singh in respect of damages to the property in dispute without there being any adequate and reliable evidence on record with regard to the actual estimate of the damages. 3. I have considered the aforesaid submissions as also perused the impugned award, more particularly Para 11 thereof. 4. The learned Tribunal has taken pains to go through the evidence and more particularly, Exhibit 16 and 17 the bills for the repairs of the Harvester combine machine and the motor-cycles, which were damaged in the accident. 5. The learned Tribunal has categorically given a finding with regard to the genuineness of these bills and also recorded that no cross-examination was made by the appellant on the veracity of the same and nothing could be elucidated in the cross-examination to show that these bills were not genuine or contents thereof were not correct. There is also no evidence in rebuttal led by the appellant on the said question. 6. The aforesaid is a finding of fact and I would not like to interfere with the aforesaid finding without there being anything to repudiate the same. 7. There is no force in this miscellaneous appeal. 8. The miscellaneous appeal and the stay application are accordingly dismissed summarily.