RAFIQ, J.—The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that vehicle that was insured and has been taken as offending vehicle was, in fact, not involved in the accident and the owner of the vehicle who has appeared as witness has denied the fact. The FIR was lodged with delay of 5 days and without the number of the vehicle, yet the police has wrongly filed challan in the matter. The informant and the witness in the challan has not been produced before the trial Court. Another witness Gangji Ram who has appeared as AW-2 to claim himself as eye witness showing the involvement of the vehicle has not been examined as a witness by the police. This is a case where the vehicle has been wrongly shown to be involved in the accident. 2. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned order, I find that AW-2 Gangji Ram in his statement has proved the fact about involvement of the vehicle. Merely because Gangji Ram has not been examined as a witness by the police, does not mean that his statement could be ignored. The police has in the investigation found involvement of the vehicle proved and on that prima facie conclusion filed the charge sheet. 3. The Tribunal has decided the matter by evidence and could not have applied standards applicable to the criminal trial. Otherwise, also the quantum of compensation is only Rs.1,38,000/- in a death claim. 4. I view of above, I see no reason to interfere in the impugned award. The appeal is dismissed.