JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. 1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the dismissal of the claim petition by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Shimla in MAC Petition No. 104-S/2 of 2012/10. 2. Facts:- (i) (a) Claim petition was preferred by the appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying for compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till the realization of the amount. (b) The case as set up in the claim petition was that appellant was carrying 2-3 passengers from Shimla to Delhi on 08.11.2008 in his Maruti Car bearing Registration No. HP-01A-9495, when at a place near Gannaur, Shane Punjab Hotel, District Sonipat, Haryana, this vehicle met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 2 of L.T.V. (Tata) bearing Registration No. HR-46-3169. It has been alleged in the petition that at the place of accident, respondent No. 2 without giving any signal turned the truck to its right side and thereby struck it on the front side of the appellant's vehicle. Because of this negligent driving of respondent No. 2, the accident occurred, which could have been avoided, had respondent No. 2 taken due care and caution while driving the ill-fated truck. The compensation was primarily claimed on account of alleged damage to the vehicle and alleged loss of business for 60 days. (ii) Respondents No. 1 and 2, i.e. owner and driver of the Vehicle bearing No. HR-46-3169, filed reply to the claim petition, wherein accident though was admitted, but it was denied that the same was caused by rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2. Rather, it was pleaded that the appellant was himself driving his vehicle in rash and negligent manner; was over speeding and had tried to wrongly overtake the truck driven by respondent No. 2. Various other objections were also taken, which are not relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the present appeal. (iii) Claim petition was also opposed by respondent No. 3, i.e. the Insurer of Vehicle bearing No. HR-46-3169. (iv) The evidence was led by the parties in respect of their respective contentions. Various other objections were also taken, which are not relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the present appeal. (iii) Claim petition was also opposed by respondent No. 3, i.e. the Insurer of Vehicle bearing No. HR-46-3169. (iv) The evidence was led by the parties in respect of their respective contentions. After considering the pleadings and the evidence, learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Shimla, vide award dated 08.05.2015, dismissed the claim petition primarily on the ground that the appellant failed to prove on record that the alleged damage caused to his car was because of rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No. 2. 3. Evidence: (i) Feeling aggrieved against the impugned award dated 08.05.2015, instant appeal has been preferred. I have heard Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Naresh Sharma, and Mr. Deepak Basin, learned counsel for the respondents and with their assistance gone through the record. (ii) In respect of his contentions that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 2, the appellant himself stepped into the witness box as PW-4. He stated that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No. HR-46-3169 by respondent No. 2, which was coming from the opposite direction and collided with his vehicle; FIR Ext. PW-3/A was lodged by him regarding this accident; he as well as the passengers travelling in his car suffered injuries in the accident; he carried his damaged vehicle to Goel Motors, Shimla; whereafter, it was further taken by him to Chandigarh for repairs; the repair bills were Ext. PW-2/A to Ext. PW-2/D. He denied the suggestion that respondent No. 2 was driving the truck in normal speed and that the accident had taken place because of his (appellant's) over speeding the vehicle bearing No. HP-01A-9495. (iii) Sh. Anil Saini, PW-1, stated that he was travelling in vehicle bearing No. HP-01A-9495 on 08.11.2008 and that accident occurred as the truck driver/respondent No. 2 had turned his vehicle towards right side without giving any indicator, as a result of which, the Alto Car suffered damage. Injuries were also caused to all the passengers in the car; In cross-examination, he stated about having been treated in the hospital at the place of accident, however, denied remembering the name of the hospital. Injuries were also caused to all the passengers in the car; In cross-examination, he stated about having been treated in the hospital at the place of accident, however, denied remembering the name of the hospital. He admitted that his presence in the vehicle was not in the capacity of a passenger; He also admitted the suggestion that vehicle bearing No. HR-46-3169 was being driven in front of their vehicle in another lane; he also admitted that he did not even remember the date of accident and had brought the information about it in writing. According to him, front portion of the appellant's car had hit the back portion of truck driven by respondent No. 2. He further stated in cross-examination that their vehicle had struck the left side of the truck. (iv) PW-3 ASI Kuldeep Singh, brought the record regarding FIR No. 325/08 (Ext. PW-3/A), registered on 09.11.2008 at Police Station Gannaur, District Sonipat, Haryana. He also stated that respondent No. 2 had been acquitted in this case on 02.03.2013. (v) Sh. Harbhajan Singh, owner of workshop appeared as PW-2 and stated that:- vehicle was repaired in his workshop; bills Ext. PW-2/A to PW-2/D were issued in this regard; he further stated that vehicle was brought with the help of crane. (vi) In defence, respondent No. 2, (driver of truck) appeared as RW-1, who stated that he was working as driver with respondent No. 1 for about 12 years and was driving vehicle bearing No. HR-46-3169 on the date of accident; he denied that the truck was being driven by him rashly or negligently rather he was driving this vehicle in normal speed and had given the indicator before turning the vehicle; appellant was driving his vehicle at great speed, as a result of his over speeding the vehicle, the accident occurred; the vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3. 4. Observations: (i) Evidence led by the appellant is contradictory to his factual pleadings regarding alleged mode and manner in respect of description of accident. In the claim petition, it was pleaded that accident occurred because of failure on part of respondent No. 2 in giving any signal for turning the truck to the right side, whereas, in the witness box, the appellant stated that truck driven by respondent No. 2 was coming from the opposite side and that is why, the vehicle suffered so much damage. The accident in question has not been disputed by the respondents, however, their case is that respondent No. 2 was driving the truck in normal speed and was turning it towards right side after giving proper indicator when the car driven by the appellant in great speed in rash and negligent manner struck with the truck and resultantly suffered some damage. The FIR Ext. PW-3/A was registered a day later. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 2 stands acquitted in the said case. (ii) Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon judgment in Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2018) 5 SCC 656 , wherein relying upon Dulcina Fernandes and Others vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 , it was held that evidence of claimant ought to be examined by the Tribunal on the touch stone of preponderance of probability and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied. (iii) There cannot be any dispute with the above settled legal position, however, in the instant case:- (i) It is significant to notice that claim is on account of damage caused to the vehicle. Admittedly no damage has been claimed by the appellant from the Insurer of his own vehicle. (ii) The mode of rashness and negligence pleaded by the petitioner is absolutely contrary to his statement in the witness box. It has been pleaded that truck was turned towards right side by respondent No. 2 without giving any indicator because of which accident occurred, whereas, in the witness box, it was stated by the appellant that accident occurred on account of head on collision. Statement of PW-1 in this regard is contrary to the statement of PW-4. (iii) The persons alleged to be the passengers travelling in appellant's car and alleged to have suffered injuries in the accident, have not been examined. (iv) PW-1 Sh. Anil Saini, was admittedly not travelling in the car in the capacity of passenger. He does not even remember the date of the accident. He, though, says that he was treated in the hospital along with other passengers on the day of accident, but does not even remember the hospital. (v) PW-2 Harbhajan Singh, has proved on record the repair bills Ext. PW-2/A to Ext. PW-2/D, however, these bills are of January, 2009, whereas, the accident in question is of 8th November, 2008. He, though, says that he was treated in the hospital along with other passengers on the day of accident, but does not even remember the hospital. (v) PW-2 Harbhajan Singh, has proved on record the repair bills Ext. PW-2/A to Ext. PW-2/D, however, these bills are of January, 2009, whereas, the accident in question is of 8th November, 2008. As per appellant, PW-4, the vehicle was brought from the place of accident in District Sonipat, Haryana to Goel Motors, Shimla, from where, this vehicle was taken to Chandigarh to the workshop of PW-2, whereas, as per statement of PW-2, Harbhajan Singh, the vehicle was brought to his workshop with the help of crane, however, appellant does not say anything about the mode and manner of bringing the vehicle from the place of accident to Shimla and from Shimla to Chandigarh. Both the witnesses contradict each other on this material aspect also. 5. In view of the above, learned Tribunal below was justified in not believing that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No. 2. The appellant has not been able to prove that damage has been caused to his vehicle on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck driven by respondent No. 2, by leading cogent and reliable evidence. Since this appeal is being dismissed, therefore, there is no need to advert to various other pleas taken by the learned counsel for the respondents including the plea advanced by learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that even otherwise as per Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act read with terms and conditions of Insurance Policy, respondent No. 3 cannot be held liable to pay more than a sum of Rs. 6000/- as alleged claim at best was a case of third party property damage; and the plea taken by learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that the claim petition was not maintainable as the claimant had not impleaded his own Insurance Company. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal, hence, the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.