JUDGMENT Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant, challenging the impugned award dated 18.9.1999, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (in short - the Tribunal), whereby the claim petition filed by him has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Tribunal without appreciating the evidence on record, has wrongly dismissed the claim petition. The appellant suffered multiple injuries on account of the accident occurred on 18.2.1995, which is proved from the medical evidence. With regard to the accident a DDR No. 13 dated 18.2.1995 was recorded by the police. The appellant examined Narottam as PW 1, and Rajender Singh as PW 4, eye witness, and they stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. The appellant suffered fracture of tibia and febula in left leg besides multiple abrasions on his left thing, right mandibular region and left hand. He remained hospitalised for nine days. He suffered disability to the extent of 15%. 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly declined the claim of the appellant. He prays for the dismissal of the appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 4. The learned Tribunal framed issue No. 1 "Whether the accident resulting into injuries to the petitioner had occurred on 18.2.1995 due to rash and negligent driving of tractor No. HR-34/3183 by Ram Niwas respondent? OPP" While deciding the said issue, the learned Tribunal recorded a categoric finding, which reads as under:- "18. In view of the admission of the claimant regarding the manner in which the accident had taken place as well as the documentary evidence referred to above and the ocular testimony of PW 2, PW 4 and that of RW 1 and RW 3, it clearly comes (sic) claimant while driving the scooter had fallen down from it when its tyre slipped all of a (sic) sustained multiple injuries on his person in that way (sic) respondent No. 1 therefore cannot be taken to have caused the above accident and the resultant injuries on the person of the claimant by driving his tractor in a rash and negligent manner. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the claimant in favour of the respondents No. 1 and 2." 5. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the claimant in favour of the respondents No. 1 and 2." 5. Even Gajraj, the alleged driver of the scooter on which the appellant was enjoyed pillion riding, has appeared as RW 2 and categorically deposed that he had never driven any scooter No. HR-34-0572. There is no supporting evidence to the version made by the appellant. In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the well reasoned findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the present appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.