Judgment This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.12.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (“Tribunal” for short) in file No. 515/claim titled “Union of India vs. Surinder Kumar and others” whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant for want of evidence. 2. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts and law on the subject and, therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside. 3. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that on 01.08.2005 an accident took place near Tikri village of District Udhampur by the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e Bus No.7955 JK02E being driven by its driver which hit against Maruti Gypsy No. 99B 066322A which belonged to the appellant causing damage to the vehicle of the appellant i.e Maruti Gypsy No. 99B 066322A. 4. The appellant filed a claim petition for grant of compensation on account of damage caused to its vehicle. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (i) Whether an accident occurred on 01.08.2005 at 3 km short of Tikri village Udhampur on NH1A by the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. 7955 JK02E being driven rashly and negligently in the hands of erring driver in which the vehicle was damaged ? OPP (ii) If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioner is entitled to compensation if so to what extent and from whom ? OPP (iii) Whether at the time of accident driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and drove the vehicle in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy ? OPR-1 iv. Relief O.P. Parties. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 7. Before the Tribunal, the appellant was seeking compensation against the damage of its vehicle in the accident caused by the offending vehicle while driving in rash and negligent manner. The compensation to property is well covered under Section 166 of M.V. Act and may be claimed by filing a claim petition. However, the appellant was bound to prove rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle to cause damage to its vehicle to claim such compensation under section 166 of M.V.Act. The compensation to property is well covered under Section 166 of M.V. Act and may be claimed by filing a claim petition. However, the appellant was bound to prove rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle to cause damage to its vehicle to claim such compensation under section 166 of M.V.Act. The onus to prove rash and negligent driving was on the appellant. However, this fact has not been proved by the appellant as no evidence in this regard was led before the Tribunal. 8.From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the claim petition of the appellant has been dismissed by the Tribunal for want of evidence. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference as the appellant has not been able to point out any infirmity in it. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.