M.M.Kumar, J. - (1.) This appeal filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for brevity, 'the Act') is directed against the award dated 2.5.1987, arising out of MACT Case No. 30 of 1986, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'). The claimant-appellant is one Smt. Vijay Mehta, who is the owner of truck bearing Registration No. HYC-6235, which has been found to be substantially damaged in the accident. The Tribunal has accepted the report of the Surveyor with little variation as he has left out items like wheel wooden planks and mud guard etc. at the asking of the claimant- appellant in order to boost the amount of estimated loss to the truck. Accordingly, the total assessed loss of Rs. 40,000/- was reduced to Rs. 35,000/-. The aforementioned factual position is discernible from perusal of para 27 and the same reads as under: 27. An examination of the photographs Ex. PL to Ex. PP of the damaged truck taken by the surveyor shows that the damage to the truck was indeed substantial. A look at the photographs Ex. PM and Ex. PP reveals that all the 4 hind wheels with tyres are intact. The front left side tyre too is intact. Similarly, the right side body of the truck also appears to be in position although left side has been damaged. In this way the substantial loss is to the front portion of the truck as illustrated in the photo Ex. PL. The surveyor has not denied that he has not deducted the approximate value of the missing items like wheel wooden planks, mud guard etc. etc. from the total assessed loss. It cannot, therefore, be said that the estimate Ex. Pq represents the actual estimated loss caused to the truck. It may be noted that as per the own showing of P.W.8 Shiv Kumar he had found the wooden planks lying scattered here and there which he had collected. However, inspite of the above the surveyor has not detected (deducted?) their value from the estimate which fact he has not denied. It looks that the surveyor who is a renumerated witness of the claimant has left out items like wooden planks, wheels mud guard etc. etc. at the asking of the latter in order to boost the amount of estimated loss to the truck. Taking this in view I am of the opinion that roughly an amount of Rs. 5,000/- be deducted from the total assessed loss of Rs. 40,000/-.
(2.) The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 500/- for transporting the truck from the place of accident, which was proved by receipt Ex. PT. The claimant- appellant was further held entitled to reimbursement of Rs. 600/- paid by her to the Surveyor. The aforementioned amount of Rs. 1,100/- has been added to the amount of Rs. 35,000/-, which as per the report of the Surveyor produced by the claimant-appellant herself is assessed.
(3.) The only argument raised by the learned Counsel for the claimant-appellant is that the truck remained without any income for a number of months and it used to earn an income of Rs. 1,200/- to 1,300/- per month. According to the learned Counsel, the award is liable to be enhanced by awarding loss of income for a period of at least six months.;