JUDGMENT B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. — This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) filed by the claimant-appellants against the nil award dated 16.08.2004 passed by the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SD), Berhampur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribu¬nal’) in M.A.C. No.63/96(496/95). 2. The case of the claimant-appellants before the learned Tribunal was that on 10.03.1995 the deceased Bijaya Kumar Polai was travelling in a bus bearing Registration No.OAG 9555 (Subhas¬ree) from Nalabanta to Berhampur. The bus took motion after its stoppage at Nalabanta, where the deceased boarded it. After moving a distance of 300 yards from the said stoppage, the bus while overtaking a truck loaded with sugarcane standing on its left side, swerved to further right in order to save a cyclist, who was coming from the opposite side. The bus hit the cyclist and then turned turtle as a result of which the deceased Bijaya Kumar Polai sustained injuries on his person in the said acci¬dent. According to the claimant-appellants, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the of¬fending bus. Initially, the deceased was treated at Aska Hospital and then taken to MKCG Medical College hospital, Berhampur. Subsequently, he underwent dialysis for his kidney injury and died in the said hospital on 27.1.1999. 3. After the accident, the deceased Bijaya Kumar Polai had filed a claim application before the learned Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him. Subsequently, after the death of the deceased on 27.01.1999, his legal heirs claimed Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased due to the said accident. 4. The owner of the offending vehicle-respondent No.1 in his written statement specifically denied the allegation of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. He stated that he was not liable for payment of any compensation to the claimants as the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company filed its written statement denying all the averments made in the claim application. Further case of the Insurance Company was that the offending vehicle was not duly insured with them at the time of accident. 5. On the above pleadings the learned Tribunal framed following six issues. “1. The Insurance Company filed its written statement denying all the averments made in the claim application. Further case of the Insurance Company was that the offending vehicle was not duly insured with them at the time of accident. 5. On the above pleadings the learned Tribunal framed following six issues. “1. Whether the vehicle bearing Registration NO.OAG 9555 (Bus) was being driven in rash and negligent manner causing injuries to the petitioner-deceased Bijaya Polai and petitioner Gadadhar Padhy ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, what should be the quantum thereof ? 3. Whether the claims are entertainable as against all or any of the respondents ? 4. To what relief ? 5. Whether the death of the injured Bijaya Kumar Polai has any connection with the injury alleged to have been sustained in vehicular accident ? 6. Whether at the time of accident the offending vehicle OAG No.9555 was covered under valid insurance ?” 6. The claimants examined four witnesses and filed fifteen documents which were marked as Exts.1 to 15. The owner of the vehicle examined himself and filed two documents which were marked as Exts. A and B. The Insurance Company examined one witness and filed seven documents which were marked as Ext.A-I, B-I, C-I, Mark ‘X’, Mark ‘Y’, Ext.A-I/a & Ext. D-I. 7. After taking into consideration both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was not travelling in the bus and consequently did not sustain any injury out of the accident caused by the offending vehicle. Learned Tribunal has assigned two reasons for coming to such conclusion. These reasons are that (i) no ticket issued by the conductor of the offending vehicle to the deceased Bijaya Kumar Polai was produced before the learned Tribunal and (ii) in the FIR filed before the concerned Police Station, the name of the deceased was not mentioned by the informant. The learned Tribunal has relied on following two decisions of this Court. In Mataji Bewa and Ors. v. Hemanta Kumar Jena and Anr., 1994 ACJ 1303 it has been held that the contents of the charge sheet cannot be treated as an evidence in a claim proceeding and the Tribunal must rely upon the evidence led before it. He also relied on 2004 (I) T.A.C. 270 Orissa (Oriental Insurance Co. In Mataji Bewa and Ors. v. Hemanta Kumar Jena and Anr., 1994 ACJ 1303 it has been held that the contents of the charge sheet cannot be treated as an evidence in a claim proceeding and the Tribunal must rely upon the evidence led before it. He also relied on 2004 (I) T.A.C. 270 Orissa (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhaiga Pradhan and Ors.) to hold that the Police paper is not a substantive piece of evidence and it is only for the purpose of contradiction and/or corroboration and cannot take the place of substantive evidence recorded during trial. 8. Miss D. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant-appellants, strenuously argued that the conclu¬sion reached by the learned Tribunal that the deceased was not travelling in the offending vehicle is without any material on record. She relied upon the statements of PWs. 2, 3 & 4. PW-2, the wife of the deceased, Bijaya Kumar Polai, in her statement stated that her husband was travelling in the said bus and sus¬tained injury in the said accident. In the cross-examination nothing substantial was elucidated. PW-3, an eye witness to the occurrence, stated that the deceased was travelling in the of¬fending bus and sustained injury in the said accident. P.W.4, the doctor, has stated that he was in charge of the Hospital on 13.03.1995 and treated one Bijaya Polai. Learned counsel also relied on Ext.6, which is the requisition of the Police and report of the Medical Officer. On such requisition the Medical Officer, Aska Government Hospital, reported that said Bijaya Kumar Polai sustained one grievous injury. The learned counsel also relied on Ext.11, the final form, which clearly shows that the offending vehicle met with an accident and in the said acci¬dent Bijaya Kumar Polai sustained injury. In support of her contention, learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the observation of the learned Tribunal made in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of its order and contended that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is erroneous and baseless. She further submitted that subsequent to the accident, said Bijaya Polai expired on 27.1.1999 for which the original claim of Rs.50,000/- was en¬hanced to Rs.5,00,000/-. Placing reliance on all these above evidence, learned coun¬sel emphatically argued that on cross-examination nothing con¬trary was elucidated from the statements of PWs.-2, 3 and 4. She further submitted that subsequent to the accident, said Bijaya Polai expired on 27.1.1999 for which the original claim of Rs.50,000/- was en¬hanced to Rs.5,00,000/-. Placing reliance on all these above evidence, learned coun¬sel emphatically argued that on cross-examination nothing con¬trary was elucidated from the statements of PWs.-2, 3 and 4. In view of the above, she submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error in holding that on the date of accident the deceased was not travelling in the offending vehicle and did not sustain any injury in the accident caused by the offending vehi¬cle. She further submitted that the deceased died on 27.01.1999 as a result of the said accident. While concluding her argument, she submitted that compensation as claimed should be awarded to the claimants who are the legal heirs of the deceased. 9. Mr. Balkrishna Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the owner of the vehicle submitted that the learned Tribunal is right in holding that the deceased was not travelling in the bus and the claim that the deceased sustained injury out of the said accident is not correct. He also submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly analyzed the evidence on record and came to a correct conclusion. He further submitted that the claimants could not establish that the death of the deceased on 27.01.1999 was the outcome of the accident occurred on 10.03.1995. There is no evidence on record to establish the nexus between the accident and the death. Relying on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Uttam Kumar v. Madhab and Anr., (2006) 1 ACC 378 learned counsel submitted that if any accident occurred in which any person sustained injury and filed the claim petition before the Tribunal and subsequently that person died and it could not be established that victim’s death is out of the accident, the amount of the compensation shall be limited to Rs.2,500/- and the claimants are not entitled to any other compensation. Mr. Rao further submitted that in the F.I.R. the name of Bijaya Polai was not mentioned by P.W.3 even though he belonged to the same village. Mr. Rao further submitted that in the F.I.R. the name of Bijaya Polai was not mentioned by P.W.3 even though he belonged to the same village. It is not clear as to why the name of Bijaya Polai was not mentioned in the F.I.R. even though the name of Gada Padhi, the uncle of P.W.3, was specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. He further submitted that the eye witness has admitted this fact on his cross-examination. He admitted before the learned Tribunal that he had not mentioned the name of Bijaya Polai in the F.I.R. The learned counsel further emphasized that even though the accident occurred on 10.3.1995 it is not under¬stood why the police made a requisition on 13.3.1995 and the delay has not been properly explained by the claimants. No ticket in support of travelling of deceased in the offending bus was produced before the learned Tribunal. His further case was that no co-passenger was also examined on behalf of the claimants before the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel also drew the attention of the Court to the observation of the learned Tribunal made in paragraph-7 of its order. In paragraph-7, the learned Tribunal has observed that even though the accident occurred on 10.3.1995 the police requisition was not made on the same day and the same was made on 13.3.1995. He also submitted that page-6 of the order of the learned Tribunal shows that Bijaya Polai was not travelling in the offending bus and sustained injury in the acci¬dent. 10. Learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company submitted that on the date of occurrence the offending vehicle was not covered by any policy of insurance. To that effect he submitted that the learned Tribunal rightly fastened the liabili¬ty on the owner of the vehicle. He also relied on issue Nos.3 and 6 and paragraph 14 of the impugned award and submitted that Tribunal has gone to the extent of holding that the insurance papers are tampered to make a false attempt to fasten the liabil¬ity on the insurance company. It is further submitted by him that in another case which arose out of the same accident, the learned Tribunal has not fixed the liability on the Insurance Company but fixed the same on the owner of the vehicle and against the said order the owner of the vehicle has not filed any appeal. It is further submitted by him that in another case which arose out of the same accident, the learned Tribunal has not fixed the liability on the Insurance Company but fixed the same on the owner of the vehicle and against the said order the owner of the vehicle has not filed any appeal. In reply, Miss Dipali Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and therefore it need not be an encyclopedia of events. 11. The issues involved in this appeal are as follows : (i) Whether the deceased Bijay Kumar Polai was travelling in the offending vehicle ? (ii) Whether deceased Bijaya Kumar Polai has sustained any injury out of the accident caused by the offending vehicle. ? (iii) Whether the death of deceased Bijaya Polai has any connection with the injury alleged to have been sustained in the vehicular accident ? (iv) Whether at the time of accident, the offending vehicle OAC 9555 was covered under a valid insurance policy ? (v) To what extent the claimants are entitled to get compensa¬tion ? 12. The two reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal for holding that the deceased was not travelling in the offending bus are that : (i) no ticket issued by the conductor of the offending vehicle to deceased Bijaya Polai was produced before the learned Tribunal; and (ii) in the FIR filed before the concerned police station, the name of the deceased was not mentioned by the in¬formant. Needless to say that usually after an accident it is not expected that a passenger should hold the ticket issued by the conductor of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the first reason assigned by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable. In Superintendent of Police, CBI & Ors. v. Tapan Ku. Singh, (2003) 25 OCR (SC) 316, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that FIR is not an encyclopedia. It is not required to disclose all facts and details relating to offence. An FIR is not required to be lodged by an eyewitness but it must disclose commission of cognizable offence. Even the informant is not required to mention the name of the victim or his assailant in the FIR. This Court in Bani alias Banamali Pradhan & Anr. v. State, (1998) 14 OCR 571 , held that FIR should not be treated as an encyclopedia of factual aspects. Even the informant is not required to mention the name of the victim or his assailant in the FIR. This Court in Bani alias Banamali Pradhan & Anr. v. State, (1998) 14 OCR 571 , held that FIR should not be treated as an encyclopedia of factual aspects. The same is not a substantive piece of evidence. Its use is limited for the purpose of testing the veracity of the statement made by its author. The Accident Tribunal must take special care to see that an innocent victim do not suffer and drivers and owners of the of¬fending vehicle do not escape the liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases culpability must be inferred from the circumstance where it is fairly reasonable (See AIR 1980 SC 1354 ). Therefore, because of the fault of the informant for not mentioning the name of the victim travelled in the offending vehi¬cle the victim should not suffer. On the other hand, the evidence of PW-2, the wife of the deceased in her statement stated the fact that her husband was travelling in the offending vehicle and sustained injury in the said accident. She first saw her husband in Aska hospital in unconscious condition. On cross-examination nothing substantial was elicited to discredit the statement of PW-2. PW-3 was an eye witness to the occurrence. According to him, the deceased was also travelling in the offending bus and sustained injury out of the said accident Ext.-6 is the requisi¬tion of police and report of medical officer. The requisition made by the Police runs as follows : “To The M.O., I/C. Aska Govt. Hospital, Ref: Aska P.S. Case No.33 dt.10.3.95 U/s.279/338 IPC. Sub: Examination of injured Bijaya Polai, s/o Late Hari Polai, Advocate, Aska. Sir, In sending herewith the above noted injured, I beg to report that on 10.3.95 while he was proceeding to Berhampur in Bus No.O.A.G 9555 near Nalabanta the bus met an accident as a result he sustained injury on his hydrocel. The occurrence took place at about 7 PM on 10.3.95. Please examine and opine the cause, nature and duration of injury. Yours faithfully, Sd/-13.3.95 S.I., Aska” Exhibit-6 also contains the report given by Doctor on 14.03.1995 being referred by the Investigating Officer. The occurrence took place at about 7 PM on 10.3.95. Please examine and opine the cause, nature and duration of injury. Yours faithfully, Sd/-13.3.95 S.I., Aska” Exhibit-6 also contains the report given by Doctor on 14.03.1995 being referred by the Investigating Officer. In the said report, the Investigating Officer reported that the accident occurred on 10.3.1995 and in the said accident the deceased sustained injury. Ext.-11, which is the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer after completion of the investigation, confirms the fact of accident caused by the offending vehicle on 10.3.1995 and also confirms the fact that in the said accident deceased Bijaya Polai sustained injury. The owner of the vehicle has not specifically denied the assertion regarding the accident and that the deceased was a passenger in the vehicle. All these evidence if taken into consideration lead to a logical conclusion that deceased Bijaya Polai was a passenger travelling in the offending vehicle and he sustained injury on account of the said accident caused by the offending vehicle. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to accept the finding given by the learned Tribunal to the effect that deceased Bijaya Polai was not travelling in the offending vehicle and also did not sustain any injury out of the said accident. 13. The other vital claim of the claimants was that the death of deceased Bijaya Polai was the outcome of the accident caused by the offending vehicle. On a perusal of the impugned judgment of the Claims Tribunal and the evidence on record, I am of the considered view that no cogent evidence was adduced by the claimants to establish that the death of the deceased was the outcome of the accident faced by him on 10.03.1995. Another important aspect of the case is that the deceased died on 27.01.1999 whereas the accident took place on 13.03.1995. Thus, there is a gap of about four years and no nexus was established between the accident and death of the deceased-Bijaya Kumar Polai. Here, the appellants have miserably failed to correlate the accident with the death of the deceased before the learned Tribunal as well as before this Court. In that view of the mat¬ter, it is difficult on my part to accept that the deceased died on 27.01.1999 because of the accident he faced on 10.03.1995. 14. Here, the appellants have miserably failed to correlate the accident with the death of the deceased before the learned Tribunal as well as before this Court. In that view of the mat¬ter, it is difficult on my part to accept that the deceased died on 27.01.1999 because of the accident he faced on 10.03.1995. 14. The learned Tribunal after going through the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the offending vehicle was not covered by any valid insurance policy at the time of accident. Before this Court nothing was also produced to reverse the said finding of the learned Tribunal. Thus, I am of the view that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was not covered by any valid insurance policy. 15. The deceased after facing the accident claimed compen¬sation of Rs.50,000/- for sustaining injuries. After death of the deceased, claimants claimed Rs.5.0 lakhs on the ground that the deceased died because of the accident. In the foregoing paragraphs, it is held that the deceased sustained injury out of the accident and his death was not the outcome of the said accident. The doctor-PW4 states that one injury is grievous in nature. In the common judgment passed in MAC No.63196 (496/95) and MAC No.389/96 (168/96), which is under challenge, learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.60,000/- with 9% per annum to another claimant, namely, Gadadhar Padhy for the injury sustained on his person. In this case, I assess the just compensation at Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) only which the claimants are entitled to get. Since the offending vehicle was not covered by valid insurance policy at the time of accident, the owner of the offending vehicle shall pay the compensation amount to the claim¬ants with interest. 16. In view of the above, I direct the owner of the offend¬ing vehicle (Respondent No.1) to pay the above compensation amount with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the learned Tribunal till the date of payment within two months from the date of this order. 17. With the above observation, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed in part.