ORDER : 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 23.03.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, cum Member, MACT Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 1073/15 awarding compensation of Rs. 13,11,600/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Eleven Thousand and Six Hundred) in favour of the respondents/claimants. 2. Heard Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.C. Baishya, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 3. When the matter came up for consideration, while preparing the judgment, I have noticed that the respondent/claimant No. 1 Arati Boro, while submitting her evidence on affidavit sworn before the Notary Kamrup (M), she did not put her signature on the evidence on affidavit. Her witness Jitu Boro who was examined in MAC Case No. 1073/2015 as PW-2, also did not put his signature in his evidence on affidavit. But it is interesting to note that the Notary put her signature with seal accordingly on each page of evidence on affidavit of PW-1 and PW-2 in MAC Case No. 1073/15. It transpires that the PW-1/claimant in MAC Case No. 1073/2015 as well as PW-2 did not appear before the Notary Kamrup (M) for the purpose of their evidence on affidavit. Perhaps the matter has been overlooked by the learned counsel of both sides and the learned Tribunal who had delivered the judgment on 23.03.2017. It reveals from the record of MAC Case No. 1073/2015 that one additional affidavit was filed by the respondent/claimant No. 1 Arati Boro on 24.01.2017, wherein she put her signature on each page of the affidavit. But in the said affidavit she did not utter a single word that she had failed to put her signature on her earlier affidavit which was filed on 07.12.2015. 4. Order sheet shows that on 01.09.2015, the Insurance Company has submitted written statement and issues were also framed and the next date was fixed on 08.12.2015 for evidence. On 08.12.2015, there is no mention in the order that PW-1 and 2 have submitted their evidence on affidavit as per order dated 08.12.2015. In the order dated 08.12.2015, it was written that 2(Two) PWS were examined, crossed and discharged. 5. It appears from the evidence on affidavit of PW-1 and PW-2 in MAC Case No. 1073/2015 that PW-1 Arati Boro and PW-2 Jitu Boro put their signature on 07.12.2015 at Guwahati. In the order dated 08.12.2015, it was written that 2(Two) PWS were examined, crossed and discharged. 5. It appears from the evidence on affidavit of PW-1 and PW-2 in MAC Case No. 1073/2015 that PW-1 Arati Boro and PW-2 Jitu Boro put their signature on 07.12.2015 at Guwahati. But no order was passed on 07.12.2015 that the evidence on affidavit of PW-1 and PW-2 were submitted on 07.12.2015 before the Tribunal. In fact the date was fixed on 08.12.2015. The order of the learned Tribunal is also silent how the evidence on affidavit of PW-1 and PW-2 have been inserted in the record of MAC Case No. 1073/2015. There was no explanation from the side of the respondent/claimant while deposing before the Tribunal or by the Notary that she put her signature with seal on the evidence on affidavit of PW-1 and PW-2 by mistake. 6. As per the Notaries act or Oaths act the Notaries or Oath Commissioners are required to follow the Rules carefully in administering oath/affirmation. The act should not be done in a casual or incomplete manner giving room for an impression that the affidavit has been attested in the absence of the deponent or that the affidavit has been attested on a day other than the day on which it was signed by the deponent or that the transaction has not been entered in the Oath Register. The Rules have been framed precisely to safeguard against such contingencies and to ensure that such mistakes do not occur. On account of the Rules not being followed sincerely, such mistakes continue to occur. 7. It is unfortunate that the importance of affidavits and the seriousness attached to due and proper execution thereof is constantly ignored or missed by the persons concerned. An affidavit is not a mere typed format, to be signed and attested as an empty formality. An affidavit is a solemn and voluntary declaration or statement of facts in writing, relating to matters in question or at issue, and sworn or affirmed and signed by the deponent before a person or officer duly authorized to administer such oath or affirmation. The Courts are required to determine disputes or causes and make orders or give judgments, acting on such affidavits. In the absence of due ‘affirmation’ or ‘swearing’, an affidavit has no value and in fact is not valid. 8. The Courts are required to determine disputes or causes and make orders or give judgments, acting on such affidavits. In the absence of due ‘affirmation’ or ‘swearing’, an affidavit has no value and in fact is not valid. 8. Thus, when an affidavit is tendered in Court, it is intended to be acted upon as evidence in such proceedings. Evidence, unless given an oath or solemn affirmation, is of no value. Normally administering oath before recording evidence is the function of persons authorized to receive evidence. This important and solemn function is assigned and entrusted to Notaries, Oath Commissioners and Designated Officers, under Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure and High Court Rules. Persons entrusted with the duty and power of administering oath or affirmation should always bear in mind, the solemnity and sanctity attached to the act of administering oath/affirmation; they should not forget that affidavit’s are intended to be acted upon as evidence for rendering decisions determining rights and obligations of parties. Making an endorsement relating to administration of oath or affirmation in the absence of a party, is similar to recording evidence in the absence of the witness. Such things should not happen; these things cannot be permitted to happen; and that these matters are required to be reminded to the persons concerned, is an indication of the sad state of affairs. 9. Section 3(1) of the Oath Act, 1969, empowers Courts and persons having by law or consent of parties, authority to receive evidence, to administer oaths and affirmation in discharge of the duties imposed or in exercise of the powers conferred upon them by law. Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of Oaths Act provides that the High Court may empower any person to administer oaths and affirmation in respect of affidavits for the purpose of judicial proceedings. Section 139 of Code of Civil Procedure provides that in the case of any affidavit under the Code, oath or affirmation may be administered to the deponent by any Court or Magistrate, any Notary appointed under the Notaries Act, 1952 or any officer or other person appointed by the High Court in that behalf or any officer appointed by any other Court which the State Government has generally or specially empowered in that behalf. 10. 10. Section 8(e) of the Notaries Act, 1952 empowers a Notary to administer oath to, or take affidavit from any person Rule 11 (2) of the Notaries Rules, 1956, requires a Notary to maintain a Notarial Register showing serial number, date, nature of notarial act name of the executant or person concerned with full address, contents of document, notarial fee-stamp affixed, fee prescribed and fee charged, serial number of receipt book. The Notary is also required to obtain the signature of person who is executing the document, in the Register. 11. Thus when a Notary/Oath Commissioner administers an oath/affirmation, he is mandatorily required to enter the name and particulars as prescribed and obtain the signature of the deponent in their registers. Such entries are required to be made seriation by assigning a separate serial number for each transaction. The prescribed procedure for attesting affidavits makes it clear that making of endorsements on the affidavit and recording the particulars and obtaining the signature in the Register, is an integral part of the act of attestation or act of administering oath/affirmation. It, therefore, follows that while making necessary endorsements in the affidavit, the Attesting Officer will have to mention the reference number of the transaction (as entered in the Register) in the endorsement made at the end of the affidavit. It is also necessary that the Attesting Officer should mention his address to show the place where the affidavit is attested. Mentioning the serial number of the transaction (as entered in the Register) in the affidavit while making the endorsement of attestation is the only way of ensuring that a record of attestation is maintained by the Oath Commissioner/Notary. Unless the transaction particulars are entered, and the signatures are affixed in the Register as required, and the serial number of the transaction in the Register and the place of attestation (address) are mentioned in the endorsement made, the act of administration of oath/affirmation will be incomplete, and it cannot be said that in such circumstances the affidavit is duly attested. It will be a defective affidavit. 12. The Courts will not act on defective affidavits, which are not attested in the manner required by law. It will be a defective affidavit. 12. The Courts will not act on defective affidavits, which are not attested in the manner required by law. Under the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, I am of the view that fresh trial is required since filing of the evidence on affidavit by the claimant or her witness if any before the Tribunal and the case be disposed of within 2(two) months from the date of receipt of the record by the concerned Court/Tribunal. 13. Remand the case. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Learned Court/Tribunal dated 23.03.2017 is set aside. 14. LCR be sent back alongwith copy of the order. 15. The statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) only deposited be returned to the Appellant. 16. Appeal is disposed of accordingly with aforesaid observation.