JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter `the 1988 Act') has been filed by the appellant- claimant (hereinafter `the claimant') against the judgment dated 23-3-2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.8 Jaipur City Jaipur in MACT Case No.143/2005 (hereinafter `the Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant has been dismissed. 2. The facts of the case are that on 10-8-2003 around 4.30 PM when the claimant along with friend Hussain Baksh was riding motor cycle RJ- 14/33M-7000 to Nahargarh at Charan Mandir it collided with motor cycle No.RJ-14/14M-3986, which respondent Jaswant Singh was riding. Due to the accident the claimant suffered fracture of toe of right leg causing 3% permanent disability as per the doctor's certificate. FIR No.274/2003 of the accident of 10-8-2003 at the instance of the claimant was registered on 14-8-2003. The police also registered FIR No.275/2003 of the same accident at the instance of respondent Jaswant Singh. 3. In the above facts, a claim petition was filed by the claimant claiming compensation. On service of notice on the claim petition, it was opposed by the respondent No.3 the insurance company on various grounds. The driver of the vehicle in question insured with it Jaswant did not have a valid licence and that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the claimant himself. Respondents No.1&2 filed separate reply to claim petition and submitted that in the FIR No.275/2003, lodged at the instance of respondents, challan had been filed against the claimant as he was found negligent in riding his motor cycle. It was submitted that owing to claimant's own negligence, he was himself a tort fearer and thus not entitled to any compensation as claims under the Act of 1988 were claims in tort. 4. The learned Tribunal framed five issues, considered pleadings and recorded statements of witnesses for the parties and evaluated the exhibited documents. 5. Considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, more particularly Ex.4 site-plan, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that at the time of accident the claimant's vehicle was coming down from Nahargarh and the respondent's vehicle was going upward. While the3 respondent's motor cycle was at 7ft. from the end of the road, and clearly within his half of the motor way, the claimant's vehicle was at 9.5 ft. While the3 respondent's motor cycle was at 7ft. from the end of the road, and clearly within his half of the motor way, the claimant's vehicle was at 9.5 ft. from the end of the road and intruding on the half of the motor way to be used by the traffic coming from the opposite side. Thus the claimant was on wrong side of the road and clearly negligent which negligence was exacerbated by the fact of the claimant coming downhill adding to his speed. As such the claimant himself was negligent and responsible for the accident. No part of the accident was attributable to the respondent motor cyclist. The claim was dismissed. Hence this miscellaneous appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award dated 23-3-2005 passed by the Tribunal. 7. Learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly held the claimant as being negligent and responsible for the accident on the basis of the Ex.4 site plan, which was wrongly prepared by the police. Learned counsel for the insurance company however supported the impugned award dated 13-3-2001 and submitted that the claimant himself was responsible for the accident and therefore the Tribunal has rightly dismissed his petition. 8. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned award dated 23-3-2005, I am of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in disbelieving the case of the claimant. Evidently as per the material before the Tribunal the claimant was negligent in riding his motor cycle on the wrong side of the road. He was thus the tort flasher and could not be entitled to compensation. So far as the question of site plan Ex.4 being wrong, as alleged by the claimant, is concerned the claimant does not appear to have made any attempt to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. And if he even did, he did not care to bring on record the aforesaid fact before the Tribunal. To my mind the Tribunal has in the circumstances rightly disbelieved the case of the claimant based as it was on his own and his witness's self serving testimony. And if he even did, he did not care to bring on record the aforesaid fact before the Tribunal. To my mind the Tribunal has in the circumstances rightly disbelieved the case of the claimant based as it was on his own and his witness's self serving testimony. The oral testimony of the claimant and his witness with regard to negligence of Jaswant Singh riding motor cycle RJ-14/14M-3986 was insufficient to displace the legal efficacy and probative worth of Ex.4 site-plan prepared by the police in the course of investigation. Exhibited and proved before the Tribunal, the said site plan (Exhibit-4) was not put to challenge in any proceeding and even otherwise in terms of provisions of Section 114 of the Evidence Act the site plan would have high presumptive worth and credibility in view of it being prepared in the exercise of official functions. There was nothing on record to displace the said presumption in law. 9. The outcome of the criminal case in which challan was filed against the claimant for his rash and negligent driving relevant to accident, based on which the claim petition was filed, was also not brought before the Tribunal nor has been brought before this court to negate the effect of police investigation and Exhibit-4 (site plan) finding him responsible for negligence in the accident of 10-8-2003. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narbada Prasad v. Chhagan Lal [ AIR 1969 SC 395 ] has stated that the practice of the appellate court is uniformly to give the greatest assurance to assessment of evidence by the trial court. The burden in an appeal is on the appellant and it is for him to show how the judgment under appeal was erroneous or wrong on facts and/ or law. The appellant cannot ask for mere re-assessment of the evidence, but is required to show the appellate court the error in assessment of evidence by the trial court. In the case of Baburao Bagaji Karemore v. Govind [ AIR 1974 SC 405 ] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that before the finding of fact by the trial court could be upset, the findings have to be clearly established to be unsound, perverse and based on grounds unsatisfactory for reasons of inconsistencies and/ or inaccuracies. 11. In the case of Baburao Bagaji Karemore v. Govind [ AIR 1974 SC 405 ] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that before the finding of fact by the trial court could be upset, the findings have to be clearly established to be unsound, perverse and based on grounds unsatisfactory for reasons of inconsistencies and/ or inaccuracies. 11. The obtaining legal position is thus that for an appeal to succeed, it is incumbent upon the appellant to satisfy the appellate court that findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal are absolutely unsustainable. In my considered opinion, the appellant in the present appeal has failed to discharge the said burden. I am of the considered view that from the evidence on record, as detailed here-in-above, the learned Tribunal has come to a reasonably correct conclusion that the claimant had failed to prove his case for compensation owing to the accident of 10-8-2003, for which he himself was responsible. The claim petition was therefore rightly dismissed by the learned Tribunal under the impugned award dated 23-3-6 2005. Nothing erroneous, perverse or illegal can be attributed to the award under challenge. The impugned award, which is a well considered one requires no interference by this court.Therefore, I find no force in the miscellaneous appeal. Dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******