1. This Civil First Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against award dated 16.03.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udhampur in claim petition titled Amit Singh v. Ram Kumar and others whereby and whereunder claim petition filed by the appellant-claimant came to be dismissed, on the grounds taken in the memo of the appeal (for short “impugned award”). Brief facts: 2. Appellant-claimant was on his Scooter bearing registration No.JKU-2293 on 11.08.1994 from PTC road towards his house along with one Akash Gupta, who was pillion rider. It is contended that BSF vehicle bearing registration No.14616145/H was coming from Srinagar side towards Udhampur, hit the Scooter of the appellant nearby Umara Morh. The appellant-claimant sustained multiple injuries in the accident and pillion rider also sustained injuries, so both were taken to District Hospital for treatment. Appellant-claimant had sustained compound fracture of femur and was operated upon, the knailing and plating was done but despite treatment, the appellant-claimant did not recover from the injuries, but asked for specialized treatment for which the appellant-claimant has to go to outside. It is contended that said injuries have affected his career, for which he had sought compensation to the tune of Rs.2.25 lac as per the break-up given in the claim petition. 3. Respondents have contested the claim petition by projecting therein that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant as at the time of accident he was plying the Scooter at a fast speed which dashed against BSF vehicle and without having driving licence. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties following issues were framed vide order dated 31.05.1995. 1. Whether on 11.08.1994 near Umara morh on the National High way respondent Ram Kumar while under the employment of respondent No.3 plied vehicle No.14616145/H so rashly and negligently that it hit the petitioner’s scooter No.JKU-2293 as a result of which the petitioner was knocked down and sustained such injuries as have led him permanently disable ? OPP 2. On proof of issue No.1 whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, on what count and to what extent ?OPP 3. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of scooter by the petitioner himself if so what is its effect ?OPR 4. Whether petitioner was driving scooter at the relevant time without licence if so what is its effect ?OPR 5. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of scooter by the petitioner himself if so what is its effect ?OPR 4. Whether petitioner was driving scooter at the relevant time without licence if so what is its effect ?OPR 5. Whether the petitioner struck his scooter at the rear of the respondent vehicle if so what is its effect ?OPR” 5. The appellant-claimant has examined Bushan Sethi, Bikram Singh, Akash Gupta, Anoop Sharma, Dr. V.M.Sudan, Badri Nath, Jagdev Singh Record Keeper, Dr. Gani Sham, Pritam Chand besides himself as witness in support of his case. The respondents on the other hand have examined Kalu Ram, driver BSF, Charam Singh Constable, Ram Krishan, Head Constable, Ram Karpal Singh, M.R.Nari, Roshan Lal, Asstt. Commandant, Abdul Qayoom ASI, Ram Raj ASI, as witnesses in support of their defence. 6. After scanning through the evidence of appellant-claimant and respondents, Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition of the appellant-claimant on the ground that appellant has failed to prove that respondent Ram Kumar had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently. Moreso, the Investigating Officer, namely, Abdul Qayoom, ASI was examined by respondents, who had conducted investigation of the said occurrence and had come to the conclusion that the accident was outcome of driving of Scooterist, who was driving his Scooter at the time of accident rashly and negligently at a fast speed and without driving licence. He had failed to control balance of the scooter which dashed against the BSF vehicle resulting into accident in question. 7. On the basis of investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer and the witnesses examined, offence under Section 279 RPC was established against appellant-claimant. The appellant-claimant had admitted that he was not having driving licence at the relevant point of time. Further more, he failed to shatter the evidence of Investigating Officer. All the witnesses examined by respondents also deposed that appellant-claimant was rashly and negligently driving the Scooter and dashed against BSF vehicle. 8. Appellant-claimant has failed to prove issue No.1, and rightly said issue came to be decided against him. Keeping in view the finding recorded that the appellant-claimant was not holding a driving licence at the time of accident and had not been able to control his Scooter while coming from PTC road, issues 3,4 and 5 were rightly decided in favour of the respondents and against the appellant-claimant. 9. Keeping in view the finding recorded that the appellant-claimant was not holding a driving licence at the time of accident and had not been able to control his Scooter while coming from PTC road, issues 3,4 and 5 were rightly decided in favour of the respondents and against the appellant-claimant. 9. In the given circumstances, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has passed a well reasoned impugned award and needs no interference. Accordingly, appeal being meritless, is dismissed as such along with connected CMA, if any. 10. Registry to send down the records along with copy of this order.