Judgment : Appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the deceased challenging the order dated 9.8.2000 passed by the Member, MACT, Kolhapur. Deceased died on 2.2.1992 when he was travelling along with his relative from Gargoti to Kolhapur by scooter. Scooter was driven by opponent no.1 and the deceased was on the pillion seat. Deceased was injured and he succumbed to the injuries when he was taken to the hospital. The legal heirs of the deceased filed the claim for Rs.5 lakhs against the opponent, the driver and owner of the scooter and the insurance company. Learned Tribunal recorded evidence and after considering the documentary and oral evidence tendered by the applicant, dismissed the claim mainly on the ground that the very fact of deceased died due to the motor or road accident itself was not proved. The points of determination are as under : Findings 1) Whether deceased has died due to the motor accident ? No 2) Whether the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is illegal ? No 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was sitting on the pillion seat and he died in the accident. There is a police record i.e statement of the police who has lodged the FIR. She submitted that the said FIR shows that the scooter slipped and deceased fell down and subsequently died when he was shifted to the hospital. She submitted that this police record ought to have been taken into account by the Tribunal. The appellants are entitled to the compensation. 3. Learned Counsel for the opponent, driver and owner of the insurance company contested the appeal. It was submitted by the Counsel of the opponent that the claimants have failed to prove the fact that how deceased died. The claimant did not adduce any evidence on the point of actual accident. The applicant though has examined herself, she was not an eye witness therefore, the evidence of the applicant on this point cannot be considered. The submissions were made that the police record cannot be relied as the FIR was recorded nearly after one month from the date of the accident. 4. Heard submissions of both the sides. Deceased died in the accident. He was shifted to the hospital by his relative i.e. opponent no.1 when he was unconscious. That fact is to be accepted. The submissions were made that the police record cannot be relied as the FIR was recorded nearly after one month from the date of the accident. 4. Heard submissions of both the sides. Deceased died in the accident. He was shifted to the hospital by his relative i.e. opponent no.1 when he was unconscious. That fact is to be accepted. He was shifted to the hospital on 7.2.1992. It appears that the deceased had internal injuries and he was unconscious when he was shifted to the hospital. Statement of one Subhash Tayappa Bange, the Police Head Constable is produced by the learned Counsel for the appellants. The said statement was recorded on 7.3.1992 i.e. nearly after one month. He is a complainant. If applicants would have examined Subhash Bange as a witness, that would have supported their case. Police panchanama or FIR on its production can be read in evidence in the cases tried under the Motor Vehicles Act as the strict proof of the document is not required. However, this FIR does not disclose that he was an eye witness but he has mentioned the statement made by other persons in the FIR. It appears that name of one Sou. Sonabai Yeashwant Patil, resident of Mhalunge, Taluka-Karveer is appearing in the FIR as an eye witness. Thus the name and address of such eye witness was available for the claimant and they could have examined her on the point of actual accident. In the absence of such evidence the Tribunal has rightly held that the applicant has failed to establish the nexus between the vehicle, accident and the death of the deceased. 5. Considering the nature of the evidence, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be faulted out. Hence, appeal is dismissed.