Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment dated 29.8.2001 passed in MAC No. 181/1996, whereby the claim petition of the present appellant has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that when the claimant-appellant was going from Agra side to Dholpur by driving his vehicle Tata 307 bearing No. MP07/G0549, one Truck No. UP 80/D9525 was also going from the same side ahead the vehicle of the claimant-appellant. At about 6.00 am, near mid-way, the driver of the truck hit a cyclist and stopped all of a sudden without giving any signal and there was no rear break lights in the truck. The claimant-appellant tried to stop his vehicle but he could not stop at once and collided with the truck and sustained grievous injuries. The claimant appellant filed claim petition but the learned Tribunal dismissed his claim petition holding that he was negligent and hence no compensation could be awarded. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material record specially the impugned judgment and award. 4. The contention of the present appellant is that the learned Tribunal has not considered the fact that the claimant-appellant was driving the vehicle very carefully and the driver of the truck stopped the truck all of a sudden and there was no rear break lights and the only negligence was of the driver of truck. It was further stated that the truck driver has not been produced as witness and hence the learned Tribunal should have presumed that the truck driver was negligent. The non-claimant has also stated in his reply that it was a case of contributory negligence and hence the learned Tribunal has committed illegality in dismissing his claim petition. 5. The claimant-appellant himself has stated in his evidence that Truck No. UP-80/D-9525 was going ahead of him and he hit a cyclist and stopped all of a sudden. It was also stated that there was no rear break light in the truck. Be that as it may, but it was the duty of the present claimant-appellant to drive his vehicle carefully and he was only responsible for collusion by which he hit the truck, which was going ahead of him. He should have kept a reasonable distance to avoid any collusion which he did not. Be that as it may, but it was the duty of the present claimant-appellant to drive his vehicle carefully and he was only responsible for collusion by which he hit the truck, which was going ahead of him. He should have kept a reasonable distance to avoid any collusion which he did not. It was also stated that the charge-sheet has been filed against the present claimant-appellant in which he has admitted his guilt regarding rash and negligent driving. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the present claimant-appellant was responsible for rash and negligent driving, which resulted in collusion. 6. It was stated in the reply to the claim petition that it was a case of contributory negligence but it has been stated by the non-claimant that they do not know about the mode of accident and have denied that truck was involved in the accident and alternatively it was pleaded that if any negligence is determined by the learned Tribunal, then it is a case of contributory or composite negligence. Hence, reply of the non-claimant gives no strength to the case of the present appellant. 7. It is true that the driver of the truck has not been produced. It was the duty of the present appellant to prove his claim by his evidence and the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the totality of the circumstances and looking to the facts of the case, if taken on their face value, they go to show that the present appellant himself was negligent as he could not keep a reasonable distance from the truck going ahead and which resulted in the said collusion. 8. Looking at the above, there is no need to interfere in the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal. The appeal has, thus, no merit and hence the same is accordingly dismissed.