JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. D. Deb, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A. Gon Choudhury, the learned counsel for the insurer. 2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant for enhancing the amount of compensation payable to Rs.2,11,074/- from Rs.67,120/- awarded by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (The Addl. District Judge, Court No.5), West Tripura in T.S.(MAC) No.432/2005. 3. The appellant is the owner of vehicle No.TR-01-E-0422 (Maruti Van) and hotel under the name and style of “Hotel Star” situated by the side of N.S. Road, Agartala. On 22.6.2005 at about 5 a.m. while his Maruti van was parked on the road side in front of his hotel, a truck bearing No.AS-01-R-2729 dashed against his Maruti van first and then hit his multi-storied Hotel building thereby causing damage on the front side of his Maruti van and the front portion of his Hotel building. As a result, the pillars, shutter and front wall of the Hotel were damaged and a crack also developed in the building. According to the appellant, a sum of Rs.54,429/- was required for repairing of the vehicle and another sum of Rs.1,56,645/- as the cost for repairing of the building as per the report of the private surveyor cum Loss Assessor (Sri Dipak Paul). He, therefore, filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,11,074/- in total for the damage caused to his Maruti van as well as his Hotel building. A case was also registered over this accident as East Agartala P.S. Case No.84/2005 under Sections 279/427 of IPC. 4. Both the owner of the offending truck and the insurer (respondent No.2) contested the claim petition and filed their respective written statement denying any liability for the damage caused to the Maruti van and the Hotel building of the appellant. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal passed the award dated 05-12-2012 as noticed earlier. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant argues that as against the claim of Rs.16,331/- for repair of the shutter, the Tribunal awarded a mere Rs.5000/-, which was very much on the lower side. Similarly, according to the learned counsel, for damage caused to the front portion of the Hotel building, the entire building required to be repainted with the same colour, for which the appellant required Rs.89,800/- @ Rs.44.90 per sq. Similarly, according to the learned counsel, for damage caused to the front portion of the Hotel building, the entire building required to be repainted with the same colour, for which the appellant required Rs.89,800/- @ Rs.44.90 per sq. meter, but the Tribunal awarded only Rs.2,020/-, which is a peanut and disproportionate to the expenditures incurred by him. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the amount awarded by the Tribunal to the order of Rs.67,120/- is highly inadequate and does not reflect the cost of repairing done to his vehicle and the Hotel building, and the interference of this Court is, therefore, highly called for. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurer forcefully submits that not a single evidence in the form of cash memo was adduced by the appellant to substantiate his allegations over the cost incurred by him and the impugned award, which was passed after considering all these vital omissions, does not require any interference from this Court. 6. In the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant was asked by me to show me any evidence in the form of cash memos for the expenditures incurred by him, but he is unable to do so. Now, in a claim case, any compensation claimed has to be substantiated by evidence. Unless a claimant is able to lead evidence to substantiate his claim on any head with material evidence/documentary evidence, he cannot expect to be awarded the compensation claimed by him, and this is exactly what happened in this case. Consequently, the impugned award is perfectly in order and cannot be interfered with by this Court. 7. The result of the foregoing discussion is that this appeal has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, I pass no order as to costs. 8. The appeal is disposed of. Transmit the L.C. records forthwith.