ORDER : Ganesh Ram Meena, J. 1. The present civil misc. appeal has been filed by the claimant/appellant with a challenge to judgment dated 03.11.2017 passed by the Court of learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (in short ‘the learned Tribunal’) Tonk in Claim Petition No.472/2007, whereby the said claim petition filed by the claimant/appellant was dismissed. 2. The facts in brief of the matter are that the claimant/appellant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal stating therein that on 26.06.2007 at about 6:00 pm when he was going on his M-80 Motorcycle, which was driven by one Munshi, was hit by a tractor bearing Registration No.RJ-26-RA-2883 being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner. In the said accident, the claimant/appellant sustained several grievous injuries, including fractures. It was also stated that the claimant/appellant has suffered huge monetary loss and has spent huge amount on his treatment. 3. Since, even after service of notice upon the owner and the driver, they did not put in appearance before the learned Tribunal, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were ordered against them. The respondent-Insurance Company submitted reply to the claim petition and stated that the injured sustained injuries by falling from M-80 Motorcycle and lodged the F.I.R. with incorrect facts, so as to claim compensation. 4. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed as many as four issues as under:- 5. From the claimant/appellant side, the evidence of claimant as AW1 was recorded and the documents exhibited from 1 to 52, were also submitted. From the respondents side, the evidence of Manoj Verma NAW1 was also recorded. 6. After taking into consideration, the learned Tribunal vide its judgment dated 06.06.2009 dismissed the claim petition against which the claimant/appellant preferred S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4785/2009, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.07.2016 with the following observations:- 7. After remanding back the matter, the learned Tribunal vide its judgment dated 03.11.2017, again dismissed the claim petition. 8. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submits that there is cogent evidence to the claimant/appellant with regard to alleged accident and so also the involvement of the vehicle (tractor) having bearing Registration No.RJ-26-RA-2883, which is insured by the respondent-Insurance Company. After remanding back the matter, the learned Tribunal vide its judgment dated 03.11.2017, again dismissed the claim petition. 8. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submits that there is cogent evidence to the claimant/appellant with regard to alleged accident and so also the involvement of the vehicle (tractor) having bearing Registration No.RJ-26-RA-2883, which is insured by the respondent-Insurance Company. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence available on record in a correct manner, though the evidence clearly proves that the accident has taken place in a manner as narrated in the claim petition and the vehicle in question was involved in that accident. Learned counsel has relied upon the evidence of the claimant-appellant and so also the reply of the owner of the tractor given on issuance of a notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short ‘MV Act’). 9. Learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company submits that the claim petition has been filed with false and fabricated facts. Learned counsel further submits that the admission and discharge ticket of the claimant/appellant from the Government Hospital, Tonk, clearly speaks that he fell from the Motorcycle and has sustained the injuries and a note to this effect, has been mentioned by the concerned Doctor. Learned counsel further submits that the claimant/appellant has not been able to prove the accident and the involvement of the vehicle, insured by the Company. Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied upon the mechanical report of the tractor, which does not disclose the fact of accident. 10. Heard. 11. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material made available on record of the claim petition, including the evidence. 12. Earlier the claim petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 06.06.2009, however, on an appeal filed by the claimant/appellant i.e. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4785/2009, disposed of vide order dated 14.07.2016, the matter was remanded back to the learned Tribunal with a direction to the learned Tribunal to re-investigate the matter. Though, the matter was remanded by the High Court vide order dated 14.07.2016, there is no clear observation or finding with regard to ground to remand of the matter. Appeal No.4785/2009, disposed of vide order dated 14.07.2016, the matter was remanded back to the learned Tribunal with a direction to the learned Tribunal to re-investigate the matter. Though, the matter was remanded by the High Court vide order dated 14.07.2016, there is no clear observation or finding with regard to ground to remand of the matter. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence of the claimant side, observed that the claimant is not able to prove the fact of the accident and involvement of the vehicle in question and dismissed the claim petition. 13. On perusal of the evidence on record, the Court finds that only the claimant-Shivraj has been examined as AW1 from the claimant side. On critical scrutiny of the evidence i.e. statement of the claimant, this Court is of the opinion that the claimant has not been able to prove the alleged accident and the involvement of the vehicle in question. 14. As per the averments made in the claim petition, the claimant was going on a M-80 Motorcycle being driven by one of his relative named; Munshi. His brother-in-law Sitaram and his mother-in-law Kaushalya reached at hospital when he was admitted to hospital but the same were not produced in evidence so as to prove the facts as stated in the claim petition. As per the admission and discharge ticket of the claimant prepared after the accident, the concerned Doctor has put an endorsement that the patient has fallen from the motorcycle and has sustained injuries. The said Doctor has not been called for evidence and there was no application from the claimant to summon that witness. 15. In the case of claimant under the MV Act, the claimant is not supposed to prove the fact of accident and involvement of vehicle in question beyond reasonable doubt as is required under the Criminal Law. However, the burden to prove the fact lies on the claimant. On the critical examination of the evidence, this Court is of the view that the claimant has failed to prove the accident as well as the involvement of the vehicle in question. 16. In view of the discussion made above, this Court finds no error and illegality in the impugned judgment dated 03.11.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal. 17. Accordingly, the present civil misc. appeal is dismissed.