JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, Actg. C.J. The claimants are the appellants before this Court challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'MACT'), Manipur dated 30.4.2013 in MACT Case No. 188 of 2008. The appellant No. 1 is the husband of late Smt. Ningyungla Keishing and the rest appellants are the children of the appellant No. 1 and the above deceased wife of appellant No. 1. On 14.10.2008 the deceased Smt. Ningyungla Keishing (wife of the appellant No. 1) was carrying dead body of her sister, Smt. N. Keishing, in a vehicle bearing Regn. No. MN-01/W-1764 along with some others. On the way, accident took place at about 6:30 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the Driver of the said vehicle. The occupants of the vehicle sustained injuries including the deceased and all of them were taken to the nearest Primary Health Centre. On reaching the Primary Health Centre, the deceased was declared dead. Therefore, the appellants filed Claim Application before the MACT, Manipur claiming compensation of Rs. 6 lakh including the award of Rs. 50,000/- u/s. 140 of the M.V. Act, 1988. The said claim application was resisted by the respondents. The respondent No. 3 denied the allegation that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed four issues and with reference to the evidence adduced before the court while answering the issues, the Tribunal found that the identity of the deceased was not established and accordingly refused to grant compensation. 2. Mr. S. Abung, learned counsel appearing for the appellants assailed the impugned award of the Tribunal on the ground that there were sufficient materials available before the Tribunal for the purpose of identification of the deceased and ignoring of such evidence the Tribunal came to a wrong conclusion that there was no evidence to identify the deceased. 3. Mr. S. Serto Kom, learned counsel appearing for the National Insurance Company submitted that in absence of post mortem report, the Tribunal could not have come to a definite conclusion with regard to identity of the deceased as well as cause of death and due to latches on the part of the claimants, the identity of the deceased could not be established. Therefore, in absence of any evidence with regard to identity of the deceased, no compensation could be paid and therefore the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim application. 4. The sole question for consideration for this Court in this appeal is as to whether the evidence was available before the Tribunal with regard to identity of the deceased or not. On perusal of the record of the lower court, I find that Ext. A/1 is the First Information Report. On the back side of the said document, the Officer in-charge has made an endorsement to the effect that out of the injured persons who had been sent to Primary Health Centre, Phungyar, one succumbed to the injuries and the said deceased was a woman. The Accident Information Report, exhibited as Ext-A/3, shows the name of the deceased and also indicates the list of injured persons. Apart from the above documentary evidence, it appears from the evidence of PW-1 that in course of the said accident, 6 (six) persons including the deceased sustained injuries and the deceased who also sustained injury succumbed to the same. This witness is the Officer in-Charge of Ukhrul P.S. who has also proved Ext. A/3, the accident report. 5. PW-2 is the appellant No. 1, husband of the deceased. In his deposition he stated that at the time of accident, he was at Imphal and having been informed of the accident, he rushed to Phungyar PS. He was informed at the police station that the dead body of his wife had been taken to Kumram village. In the village he found his wife placed in a coffin. PW-3 is the Medical Officer, stated in his deposition that the dead body of the deceased was brought and identified by the Officer in-Charge of Phungyar P.S. as well as the appellant No. 1. During post mortem examination, he found multiple abraded marks on the left cheek, temporal area, abrasion mark half by half inch over the right collar bone and a small abrasion mark over the right chest, contusions on the right lower chest. He also opined that the death was due to fractured cervical bone and crush chest following vehicular accident. 6. During post mortem examination, he found multiple abraded marks on the left cheek, temporal area, abrasion mark half by half inch over the right collar bone and a small abrasion mark over the right chest, contusions on the right lower chest. He also opined that the death was due to fractured cervical bone and crush chest following vehicular accident. 6. The evidence of these three witnesses clearly establish that in course of the accident, a woman died who was identified before the PW-3 not only by the Officer in-Charge but also by the appellant No. 1. In the impugned order the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has picked up one or two sentence from the evidence of the witnesses and ultimate conclusion arrived at is solely on the basis that no post mortem report was available in the record to establish identity of the deceased. On verification of the entire lower court record, I find that a copy of the post mortem report is available at page 38. Though it appears to be a Xerox copy and not marked as Exhibit, considering the evidence of the Doctor, PW-3, it was the duty of the Presiding Officer to call for the said Post Mortem Report to prove the identity of the deceased if it was so required. The learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal appears to have been swept away by the fact that the appellant No. 1 has not stated anything about the post mortem examination and that post mortem report was not made available to the Court. When the evidence of the Officer in-Charge is to the effect that a woman had expired in course of the accident and PW-3 had specifically stated that the deceased was identified by the Officer in-Charge as well as by her husband-appellant No. 1 and that he conducted the PM examination, dismissal of the claim application solely on the ground of non availability of P.M. report is definitely illegal. It was the duty of the Tribunal to call for the P.M. report in view of the evidence of PWs-1 and 3. For the reasons stated above, I set aside the impugned award and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal shall call for the Post Mortem Report and thereafter proceed to decide the claim application. Send back the L.C.R.