( 1 ) THIS appeal, under S. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against an award dt. 15-12-1981, passed by Shri V. D. Bajpai, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Seoni, in Motor Claims Case No. 18 of 1981, whereby the appellant-claimant prays for enhancement of compensation against the respondents.

( 2 ) THE appellant filed an application i under S. 110-A of the Act for compensation of Rs. 1,04,847/- under different heads, out of which the Tribunal accepted the claim for Rs. 6,200/- only together with interest @ 6% from the date of application till realisation, against the respondents.

( 3 ) THE facts giving rise to the claim are that on 23-5-1980, at about 1. 30 p. m. , the appellant's truck MPC 474, loaded with wooden logs, was coming on the National Highway from Khawasa towards Seoni and at the relevant time, the truck was ascending Kurai Valley. Another truck MPG 2192, owned by respondent 1 and driven by respondent 2, while going down in the said valley, violently dashed and pushed behind the truck of the appellant. After some distance, both the trucks got entangled in such a manner that they could not move further. As a result of the impact, the appellant's truck was badly damaged and logs were scattered nearby. The appellant claimed compensation against the respondents as detailed below :

(i) Repairing charges of truck

Rs. 34,847/-

(ii) Loss of business.

Rs. 35,000/-

(iii) Physical and mental pain

Rs. 35,000/-

Rs. 1,04,847/-

( 4 ) RESPONDENTS, namely, the owner and the driver of the offending truck remained ex parte. Respondent 3, the insurer of the truck of respondent No. 1, alone filed the written statement denying all the allegations in the claim petition.

( 5 ) THE Claims Tribunal held that truck MPG 2192 was driven by respondent 2 rashly and negligently as a result of which the appellant's truck MPC 474 was damaged. The Tribunal allowed a sum of Rs. 600/- towards expenses incurred by the appellant for repairs of the vehicle. The Tribunal also allowed compensation for loss of income at the rate of Rs. 800/- p. m. amounting to Rs. 5. 600/ -. In all, Rs. 6,200/- with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of application, were allowed.

( 6 ) BEFORE this Court also respondents 1 and 2 did not appear. We heard counsel for the appellant and that of respondent 3, Insurance Company.

( 7 ) ON behalf of the appellant, it was submitted that the compensation allowed to him towards the repairs of the vehicle as also for loss of business are too low. It was further submitted that the Tribunal was wrong in not allowing any compensation towards the physical and mental pain. As against this, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the passed by the Tribunal and submitted that no interference by this Court was called for.

( 8 ) THE finding of the Claims Tribunal that the accident took place solely on account of negligence of respondent 2 was not challenged. It is also not in dispute that the accident did not involve death or bodily injury of anyone. The appellant's claim was restricted to claim for compensation in respect of repairs of the vehicle, loss in business on account of the vehicle remaining idle during repairs and physical and mental pain. The Tribunal did not allow any compensation for the alleged physical and mental pains, and in our opinion, rightly so. There is not an iota of proof in support of the claim under this head.

( 9 ) THE next question for consideration is whether the claim for damage to the truck alone is maintainable and if so what should have been the just and proper compensation. By Amendment Act No. 56 of 1969, sub-sec. (1) of S. 110 of the Act was amended so as to confer jurisdiction on a Claims Tribunal to adjudicate upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving "damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both". Proviso to sub-sec. (1) of S. 110 of the Act was also amended so as to give an option to