JUDGMENT Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J.: - The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 9.2.1996, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide which, the claim petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the claim petition without appreciating the facts on record. The accident occurred due the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. As per the medical record, the accident is proved on record. The appellant suffered multiple injuries on his body and he remained admitted in Civil Hospital, Kapurthala from 20.7.1993 to 23.7.1993. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition of the petitioner. Therefore, he prays for the dismissal of the appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 5. The learned Tribunal framed issue No.1 “whether the petitioner suffered injuries resulting in his permanent disability on 20.7.93 in the area of Kapurthala at Subhanpur Road as the result of accident with a scooter driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1? OPA. While recording the finding on this issue, the learned Tribunal has categorically averred as under :- “From the brief discussion made above, it is made out that the version of the accident of the petitioner is being rebutted by the statement of Mr.Soni as RW1, that the place of accident is not established as the petitioner has stated that it took place near octroi post, whereas, according to other witnesses they had seen the petitioner lying at the distance of more than 3 KM from that place; that the version of the petitioner that he was going on morning walk is also unbelievable and improbable; that the statement made by the petitioner is not found worth relying upon the same being contrary to his earliest version according to which he had suffered injuries when his scooter had hit with a cart wheel. As such, this issue is decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents.” 6. After having gone through the record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds no substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. As such, this issue is decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents.” 6. After having gone through the record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds no substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Moreover, This Court does not want to substitute one probable view with another probable view already taken by the learned Tribunal. 7. In view of the above, this Court finds no perversity or illegality in the impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------