JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 28.11.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer ('the Tribunal'), whereby for the damage suffered by the vehicle belonging to the appellant, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. 2. While deciding the issue relating to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal noticed that the appellant had exhibited bills relating to repair amounting to Rs. 1,14,835/-, however, as the bills did not bear the name of the appellant and merely the registration number of the vehicle involved in the accident was indicated on the said bills and the vehicle was of 1994 model, looking to the nature of damage as indicated in the M.T.O. Report, the Tribunal awarded a lump sum Rs. 25,000/-. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal was not justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 25,000/- only on the reasons indicated in the impugned judgment. It was submitted that a look at the bills Exhibits-20 to 25 would reveal that the same are absolutely genuine and no default can be found in the said bills and merely because they did not bear the name of the appellant, it cannot be said that they did not pertain to the appellant's vehicle, which was admittedly damaged in the accident. It was prayed that the amount of bills as indicated vide Exhibits-20 to 25 may be awarded. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Tribunal based on the material available on record and the fact that the vehicle in question was of 1994 model, was justified in awarding a lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and the award impugned does not call for any interference. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the award impugned alongwith the record of the case. 6. It is true that Exhibits-20 to 25 does not bear the name of the appellant, however, they thus bear the vehicle number. In the cross-examination, the appellant was merely put a question as to whether the bills bear his name and he has not been questioned for the absence thereof. 6. It is true that Exhibits-20 to 25 does not bear the name of the appellant, however, they thus bear the vehicle number. In the cross-examination, the appellant was merely put a question as to whether the bills bear his name and he has not been questioned for the absence thereof. As the bills which pertain to the goods, which essentially concern the nature of damage which has been indicated in the M.T.O. Report (Ex.-8) and pertain to the period after the accident when the vehicle was released by the police, it cannot be said that the said bills have no relation to vehicle of the appellant. The fact that the appellant himself was injured in the accident also additionally support the general understanding that the goods for repairing of the vehicle are generally purchased by the repairer himself. The very fact that the bills have been issued indicating the number of the vehicle involved is sufficient to come to a conclusion that the same pertain to the vehicle-in-question. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding a lump sum Rs. 25,000/- only as against the claim of Rs. 1,14,835/- based on Exhibits-20 to 25. 7. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,14,835/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 7.3.2008. The amount of enhanced compensation with interest be paid to the appellant within a period of two months. 8. No costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******