JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to award, dated 25th February, 2012, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. (for short “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No. 62N/2 of 2008, titled as Shri Ram Lal versus Shri Bishan Singh and others, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant-claimant-injured came to be dismissed (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The Tribunal has specifically held that the appellant-claimant-injured was himself driving the scooter rashly and negligently at the time of the accident and dismissed the claim petition in terms of the impugned award. 3. The appellant-claimant-injured has called in question the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in dismissing the claim petition. 4. Thus, the sole question to be determined in this appeal is – whether the Tribunal has fallen in an error in dismissing the claim petition? The answer is in the negative for the following reasons: 5. It was for the appellant-claimant-injured to prove that the accident was caused by the driver, namely Shri Dharmatam Singh, who was driving vehicle bearing registration No. HP18 A1368 rashly and negligently, has failed to do so. 6. Admittedly, FIR No. 5/2007, Ext. RW1/A, was lodged against appellant-claimant-injured, which culminated into final report in terms of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “CrPC”), was presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The trial was conducted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajgarh, Camp at Sarahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. (for short “the trial Court”). During trial, the statement of the accused, i.e. appellant-claimant-injured, was recorded under Section 313 CrPC. In the said statement, he pleaded not guilty, but had not led any evidence to prove that the FIR was wrongly lodged against him and the accident was caused by the driver of another vehicle. 7. The trial Court, vide judgment, dated 17th July, 2010 in Criminal Case No. 21/2 of 2009/07, titled as The State of Himachal Pradesh versus Ram Lal (Annexure PX) has acquitted the accused, i.e. the appellant-claimant-injured, while holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond the reasonable doubt and not on the basis that the accident was not caused by the appellant-claimant-injured, but, by the driver of the another vehicle, namely Shri Dharmatam Singh. 8. 8. It is apt to record herein that the accused, i.e. the appellant-claimant-injured, has not moved an application during the trial before the trial Court for reinvestigation or further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) CrPC in order to establish that the accident was caused by the driver of the another vehicle, namely Shri Dharmatam Singh and not by him. He contested the case, undergone the trial and earned acquittal from the trial Court, as discussed hereinabove, on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 9. The appellant-claimant-injured filed the claim petition much later before the Tribunal for grant of compensation, as per the breakups given in the claim petition, was resisted by the respondents and the issues were framed. 10. It was for the appellant-claimant-injured to plead and prove, prima facie, that Shri Dharmatam Singh, i.e. the driver of another vehicle involved in the accident, had driven the same rashly and negligently and caused the accident, in which he sustained injuries, has not led any evidence to that extent except PW4, Shri Hari Mohan. But, the statement of the said witness has been shattered during his own cross-examination and also by HC Jaswant Singh (RW1), who had conducted the investigation of the case. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly made the discussion right from paras 9 to 21 of the impugned award. 11. Having said so, the impugned award is well reasoned and legal one, needs no interference. 12. Viewed thus, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 13. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.