JUDGMENT : S.R. Singharavelu, J. - The claimants are the Appellants. M.V. Misc. Case No. 10 of 2000 filed by them was dismissed on 17.8.2002 by the Second Additional District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T., Cuttack on the finding that there was no proof of death of the deceased in a road traffic accident. 2. The learned trial Judge has found; It is true that lodging of F.I.R. is not a condition precedent to claim compensation in a motor vehicle accident but in a death case it is expected there should be a post mortem over the dead body of the deceased to have a conclusion that the death was only due to road traffic accident and not for any other cause. In absence of police case the insurance policy No. must have been provided by o.p. No. 1 to the Petitioners but the Petitioners were silent as to how they got the policy No. of the offending scooter. 3. Therefore, the learned Judge has come to a conclusion that when the identity of the offending vehicle could not be ascertained, present claim has been filed with collusion of Respondent No. 1-O.P. No. 1. 4. However, the claimants have examined four witnesses and exhibited four documents. The Bed-head ticket of the S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack Which has been marked as Ext. 2 shows that it was a road traffic accident case. That endorsement was made soon after the time of accident on 12.5.1999. There is no axe to grind against the physician mentioning the time of admission of the injured to the hospital as an indoor patient who latre succumbed to the same. The said physician.is neither friendly nor inimical to the injured or the claimants. There is no motive of him to have mentioned it as a road traffic accident case. But all the more so the physician had no personal knowledge. He noted as per the statement given to him. Had it been a fall from the high place or a quarrel which should have been the reason for having sustained the head injury, it might have also been stated as an accident by the interested person who took the patient to the hospital. 5. He noted as per the statement given to him. Had it been a fall from the high place or a quarrel which should have been the reason for having sustained the head injury, it might have also been stated as an accident by the interested person who took the patient to the hospital. 5. True it is that the accident was said to have happened at 10.00 A.M. on 12.5.1999 while the deceased (husband of Appellant petitioner No. 1 and father of Appellant-petitioner No. 2) was returning home after morning walk, near Khan Nagar petrol Pump, a scooter bearing registration number OSB 4220 dashed him from his back side without observing any traffic rule, as a result of which the deceased became senseless due to the injury on his head. He was immediately taken to S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack for treatment where he was admitted as an indoor patient in the Department of Neuro-Surgery from 12.5.1999 to 22.5.1999 and was discharged on 22.5.1999. Again he went there for treatment on 25.5.1999 and succumbed, to the injuries on 26.5.1999. His age was 70 years then and was getting Rs. 3200/- per month towards his pension. Besides the widow (P.W.1), three more witnesses were examined. 6. The documents relating to the treatment, of the injured in the S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack available on record would show the nature of injury sustained and the subsequent death due to such injury. The doctor who was examined as P.W. 4 has stated that as the patient was able to take care of himself and showed sign of improvement, he was discharged and due to subsequent development, he died due to the injuries. The doctor has also stated that this being a medico legal case, the information was given to Mangalabag P.S., but unfortunately there is no case registered by the police. Even P.W. 3, the son of the deceased has stated that no post-mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased. No memo of information sent from the hospital to the.police is available on record in order to show that the deposition of the doctor, as if he had sent information to police, was true. 7. A surprising feature in this case, is that, even though the eye? No memo of information sent from the hospital to the.police is available on record in order to show that the deposition of the doctor, as if he had sent information to police, was true. 7. A surprising feature in this case, is that, even though the eye? witnesses speak about the hitting of the scooter from behind the person, there was absolutely no injury found on the body of the deceased. Even while admitting the injured to the hospital, the doctor had not found any injury upon the body of the injured. It is highly doubtful as to whether a person who had been hit by scooter from behind and, as a refit, fell down, would not have abrasion either on the limbs or other parts of the body. The doctor who worked in the S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital! Cuttack has recorded it as a road accident case quite inadvertently inasmuch as there was no corresponding injury of any kind in any part of the body of the injured. There is also nothing on record to show that he had informed the concerned police. The way in which he has not mentioned the injuries make us alert and come to know that there was no road accident at all That is why no information was sent by him to police as he claimed. That is why no post-mortem occurred. The fact that it was not taken as a medico legal case and the non-availability of other injuries on any other part of the body to make it appear as a road accident case also do indicate that it is not c case of road accident. Therefore, I am concurring with the learned trial Judge in finding that there was no accident and hence no compensation is awarded. 8. Appeal fails and is dismissed as such. The L.C.R. be sent back. Final Result : Dismissed