JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed against the award pronounced by the Learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 11/2006, whereby, the relief of compensation was declined vis-a-vis the petitioner/claimant. 2. The petitioner/appellant herein, had, averred in the claim petition, of, his sustaining injuries on his person, in sequel to occurrence of a collision, inter se the motorcycle whereon he was atop, with, the tractor driven by respondent No.2. He also espoused in the claim petition, that the occurrence of a collision inter se the motorcycle, whereon he was atop vis-a-vis the tractor, driven by respondent No.2, being a sequel of rash and negligent driving of the tractor, by respondent No.2. Since, the learned Tribunal has declined relief to the petitioner, significantly, upon, its rendering dis-affirmative findings upon the apposite issue appertaining to the aforesaid espousal, hence, it is to be determined, whether, the findings rendered upon apposite issue No.1, hence withstanding, the scrutiny of the evidence germane thereto. 3. The petitioner/appellant herein had vis-a-vis the alleged accident lodged a FIR, borne in Ex.PW3/A. The aforesaid FIR was lodged belatedly, since, the accident. Since therein, the petitioner/appellant herein assigns, the reason for the apposite collision, to, the rash and negligent manner of driving, of tractor by respondent No.2, hence, per se the belated lodging of the FIR, and, incriminatory ascriptions therein, against respondent No.2, (i) though, may spur an inference of concoction and per-meditation, whereupon, the relevant incriminatory ascriptions borne therein vis-a-vis respondent No.2, are, prima facie vitiated, (ii) nonetheless, since Ex.PW3/A does not constitute a substantive piece of evidence, and, when in proof, of, apposite issue No.1, the petitioner was yet enabled to adduce ocular evidence, (iii) thereupon, if the apposite, ocular evidence, is credible, besides carries evidentiary vigour, hence, the effect, if any, of the belated lodging of the FIR, by, the petitioner/appellant herein vis-a-vis the relevant occurrence, would stand obviously blunted. 4. However, the petitioner in support of the averments, cast in the claim petition, has apart, from, his solitarily testifying a version in consonance with the apposite averments cast, in the claim petition, appertaining to the apposite issue No.1, rather has not led any corroborative evidence, comprised in an ocular witness, to the relevant occurrence, also testifying before the learned tribunal concerned. Even the bald testimony, of, the petitioner/appellant herein, would be credible, and, would also enjoy vigour, yet vigour, if any, of the self serving testimony, of the petitioner/appellant herein, rendered upon apposite issue No.1, when stands rendered on 4.5.2011, (I) whereas, prior thereto the petitioner/appellant herein recorded his statement, in criminal case No. 160-1/2006/52-II/2006, titled as State vs. Sarabjit, statement whereof is borne in Ex.RW1/A, (ii) wherein he feigns ignorance vis-a-vis the cause of accident, besides in his cross-examination, he omits to make a clear and graphic ascription vis-a-vis the involvement of the tractor in the relevant collision, thereupon, the effects, if any, of the testimony, of, the petitioner/appellant, is, in its entirety, hence negated. 5. The upshot of the above discussion, is that, with the petitioner being unable to lead cogent proof visa-vis the apposite issue No.1, appertaining, to his sustaining injuries, owing to rash and negligent driving of the tractor concerned by respondent No.2, (i) thereupon, the declining of the relief by the learned tribunal is meritworthy, (ii) hence, the impugned awarded does not suffer from any gross perversity or absurdity of misappreciation, of, the relevant evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned tribunal has not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. 6. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. The impugned award is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.