JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 12th January, 2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. Petition No. 39-S/2 of 2006, titled Shri Hoshiyar Singh versus Smt. Parmeshwari Devi & others, whereby the claim petition came to be dismissed (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned award”). 2. The insurer, insured-owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The claimant has questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. The claimant had invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 5. It is averred in the claim petition that the accident was caused by driver, Madan Lal, respondent No. 2 in the claim petition, while driving truck bearing registration No. HP-51-4675, rashly and negligently, on 20.06.2004, at about 3.30 p.m., at Baghipul on Basantpur Dhami Road, District Shimla, in which, claimant sustained injuries, was taken to Primary Health Centre, Dhami and thereafter, was under treatment at Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla. 6. The respondents contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 7. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1) Whether the petitioner suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. HP-51-4675 by respondent No. 2 Madan Lal, as alleged? …OPP 2) If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petition is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? ….OPP 3) Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? ….OPR-3 4) Whether vehicle in question was being driven at the time of accident in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy? ….OPR-3 5) Whether respondent No. 2 was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? …OPR-3 6) Whether the petition has been filed by the petitioner in collusion with respondent No. 1, as alleged?...OPR-3 7) Whether the petitioner was traveling in the vehicle in question as a gratuitous passenger, if so its effect? …OPR-3 8) Relief.” 8. The parties have led evidence. 9. …OPR-3 6) Whether the petition has been filed by the petitioner in collusion with respondent No. 1, as alleged?...OPR-3 7) Whether the petitioner was traveling in the vehicle in question as a gratuitous passenger, if so its effect? …OPR-3 8) Relief.” 8. The parties have led evidence. 9. The claimant has neither examined any person from the Primary Health Centre, Dhami nor has placed on record any document to prove that he has sustained injuries on the date of accident, i.e. 20.06.2004. Thus, has failed to prove the said fact. 10. The Tribunal has rightly made discussion in para-18 of the impugned award. 11. Having said so, the impugned award is well-reasoned, needs no interference. Accordingly, the same is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 12. Send down the record after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal’s file.