Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal has been filed by the claimant against the award dated 13/2/2001 passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Betul in m. C. C. No. 34/2000 whereby learned Tribunal dismissed his claim petition on the ground that appellant failed to prove that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending truck bearing No. HR-38/8777 by respondent No. 1. ( 2. ) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 12/2/2000 appellant Sunil along with his friend Manoj were going to Partapur on his Rajdoot motorcycle bearing registration No. M. P. 05-6595. The appellant was driving the motorcycle. When they reached near the culvert at village Milanpur, one truck bearing registration No. H. R. 38/8777, owned by respondent No. 2 was driven very rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1, who without giving any indication or signal reversed his truck and dashed the motorcycle of appellant No. 1. Due to the said accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries and his motorcycle was also damaged. After the accident, a report was lodged at police Station, Betul Bazar on the next day i. e. after a period of more than 24 hours. An FIR (EX. P/10) was registered vide Crime No. 15/2000 on 13/2/2000 under Section 279 and 237, IPC. On 14/2/2000 MLC was held vide Ex. P/11. As per MLC, injury No. 1 2 and received by the appellant which reads thus : (1) Pain at Rt. joint arm. Tenderness. (2) Abrasion 1cm x 1/3 cm Rt. buttock lower part presenting clotting caused by hard and blunt object. ( 3. ) THE appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming the compensation of Rs. 17,946/- towards repairing of the motorcycle and Rs. 6,000/- towards his medical treatment. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was registered with respondent No. 3 Insurance company. ( 4. ) APPELLANT Sunil (AW-1) in para-7 of his statement has deposed that when offending vehicle was started reversing, the distance was more than 100 feet. The offending vehicle was stopped and thereafter the driver started reversing his vehicle. The appellant and his friend were stationed on his motorcycle. This witness in para-8 of his cross-examination has further admitted that his brother was in the service of Police Department and at the time of accident he was posted at Betul. The offending vehicle was stopped and thereafter the driver started reversing his vehicle. The appellant and his friend were stationed on his motorcycle. This witness in para-8 of his cross-examination has further admitted that his brother was in the service of Police Department and at the time of accident he was posted at Betul. His brother, who was posted with police department when came to know about the accident reached in the morning and thereafter report was lodged at 11. 45 A. M. This witness in para-9 has further admitted that after MLC he was not admitted in the hospital nor before lodging the report any intimation was given to the doctor of any hospital nor he was treated. This witness further in para-10 of his cross-examination has deposed that at the time of accident his motorcycle was not insured. No document has been filed to prove that he spent any amount on hiring taxi nor he filed any bills of medical expenses. ( 5. ) MANOJ (AW-2) who was pillion rider on the date of accident in Rajdoot motorcycle, in his cross-examination has deposed that he followed the offending vehicle about approximately two Kms and thereafter offending vehicle immediately stopped and started reversing. When the offending vehicle started reversing his friend also reversed his motorcycle. This witness in para-5 of his cross-examination has further deposed that when the truck was driven, road was very busy. It is further stated that due to the injuries received by him, he was not in a position to lodge the report and, therefore, report could not be lodged by him. He further admitted that betul Bazar is 2-3 Kms from the place of occurrence. ( 6. ) FROM the statement of Sunil (AW-1) and Manoj (AW-2), it is very clear that the appellant/claimant failed to prove that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck by respondent No. 1. As per MLC report, the appellant has not sustained any grievous injury. No document has been filed to prove that he spent Rs. 17,946/-for repairing of his motorcycle nor he examined any person who gave the estimate of repairing of the motor cycle. There is no explanation as to why the report has not been lodged on the same day when police station is very near to the place of accident. No document has been filed to prove that he spent Rs. 17,946/-for repairing of his motorcycle nor he examined any person who gave the estimate of repairing of the motor cycle. There is no explanation as to why the report has not been lodged on the same day when police station is very near to the place of accident. As per the evidence on record, the pillion rider has not received any injury and he failed to give any reason that why he has not lodge the report immediately after the accident. The contention of learned counsel for appellant that on account of accident the appellant sustained injuries is contrary to the evidence on record nor he filed any document to prove that he spent Rs. 6,000/- on his treatment and he spent Rs. 17,946/- in repairing of his damaged motorcycle. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, I am of the considered view that the finding recorded by learned Tribunal is based on the basis of the admission made by the appellant Sunil (AW-1) and Manoj (AW-2), that truck driver was not driving the vehicle very rashly and negligently appears to be correct. The appellant by cogent evidence failed to prove that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. Learned Tribunal considered the oral and documentary evidence on record and recorded its findings in para 6 to 11 which appear to be just and proper. No illegality or infirmity has been pointed out in the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. ( 7. ) DURING the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant very fairly conceded that there is no evidence to prove that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver nor she filed any document to prove that the appellant had sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. ( 8. ) FOR the above mentioned reasons, the finding recorded by learned tribunal is just and proper and no interference is warranted. The appeal filed by the appellant has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.