JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K.K. Dey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment & order dated 05.02.2014, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, Assam, in MAC Case No. 139/2009, dismissing the claim petition filed by the present appellant. 3. The brief facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, is that on 12.08.2009, at about 1.30 p.m., while the claimant was coming from Burabori towards Kuranibori on a vehicle, bearing Registration No. AS-21-4045 (truck), for unloading the truck as a labour, suddenly the said offending vehicle (truck) turned over the side of the road due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. As a result, the claimant/appellant sustained grievous injuries on his person. He was immediately brought to Jhargaon P.H.C., wherefrom he was taken to Morigaon Civil Hospital for treatment, where he took treatment from 13.08.2009 to 19.08.2009 as an indoor patient and at the relevant time of accident, he was 30 years of age and was working as a skilled labour and his monthly income was Rs. 5,000/-per month. It is stated that the Mayong Police Station has accordingly made a G.D. entry, being No. 261, dated 12.08.2009. The claimant, accordingly, filed the claim petition claiming an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- (Rupees one lakhs seventy thousand) only towards compensation. 4. The owner of the offending vehicle was made as Opposite Party No. 1 and the Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer of the vehicle, was made as Opposite Party No. 2. Both the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 contested their case by filing written statements and denied the claim of the claimant and besides raising the legal pleas and denying the material particulars, the Opposite Party No. 1 has stated inter alia that the vehicle is duly insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. Further, the Opposite Party No. 2, i.e. the United India Insurance Company Ltd., also took the legal pleas and denying the case of the claimant, also submitted that the claim is highly excessive, exorbitant and exaggerated without any basis. 5. The claimant adduced his evidence as P.W.-1 and also exhibited numbers of documents, but none of the Opposite Parties cross-examined the P.W.-1 and the case proceeded exparte. 5. The claimant adduced his evidence as P.W.-1 and also exhibited numbers of documents, but none of the Opposite Parties cross-examined the P.W.-1 and the case proceeded exparte. However, after hearing the learned counsel for the claimant and also considering the materials on the case record, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, dismissed the claim petition of the appellant with the opinion that he failed to prove that he was travelling in the offending vehicle as a labour on the relevant day of incident and sustained injury due to accident. 6. On being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 05.02.2014, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, in MAC Case No. 139/2009, the claimant/appellant preferred the present appeal. 7. The main ground taken in the appeal is that the claim petition of the appellant was dismissed only on the ground of some minor discrepancies as regards the facts of the case stated in the claim petition and the evidence adduced by the claimant. The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, being beneficial piece of legislation, the Court or Tribunal should not look into such minor discrepancies and give undue importance to it. Further, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, has failed to take into consideration that the claim application cannot be expected to equate with the plaint in a civil suit and above, the evidence cannot be expected to stand the scrutiny at very high standard. More so, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, also failed to appreciate the fact that neither the owner nor the insurer of the vehicle in question, in their Written Statements, have denied the fact that the claimant sustained injuries due to the accident and hence, the impugned judgment & order, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, in dismissing the claim petition, is bad in law and hence the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the interference of this Court is necessary. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the learned Court below dismissed the claim petition with an observation that in Exhibit-2, there is overlapping of date and also disbelieve the claimant as according to Exhibit-2, the condition of the claimant was stated to be improved. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the learned Court below dismissed the claim petition with an observation that in Exhibit-2, there is overlapping of date and also disbelieve the claimant as according to Exhibit-2, the condition of the claimant was stated to be improved. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the owner of the truck, i.e. the O.P. No. 1, did not make any denial in regards to the accident nor it is denied by him that the claimant was working as a labour in his truck at the relevant time of accident. The G.D. entry, which has been made by the Mayong P.S., also prove the fact that the accident had occurred at the relevant day of incident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, also decided the issue No. 1 in affirmative and accordingly, there is no dispute that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-21-4045 (truck). 9. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, dismissed the petition with a view that the evidence adduced by the P.W.-1/claimant does not support the contents of the petition on some materials particulars. It is opined by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, that in the claim petition, as per paragraph No. 10, the claimant first took treatment at Jhargaon P.H.C. and later on, he was shifted to Morigaon Civil Hospital for treatment. But, while adducing evidence, he stated that some local people took him to Morigaion Civil Hospital for treatment where he took treatment as an indoor patient from 12.08.2009 to 19.08.2009. But, in paragraph 11, there is no specific mention as to whether he took treatment as an indoor patient from 12.08.2009 to 19.08.2009. But the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaion, failed to consider the fact that the Motor Vehicle Act being beneficial piece of legislation should be decided on the principles of preponderance of probability and the claimant should not be required to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. But the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaion, failed to consider the fact that the Motor Vehicle Act being beneficial piece of legislation should be decided on the principles of preponderance of probability and the claimant should not be required to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. There may be some minor discrepancies in regards to the period of treatment or the place of treatment, mentioned in the claim petition, as there is no scope in the claim petition to give any detail description of the injury or place of treatment etc. Further, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaion, also failed to consider the fact that note “improve” does not mean that the claimant could not take further treatment for his complete recovery and there is nothing to be surprise if 11 (eleven) numbers of prescription was given by Dr. Ajay Kumar Phukan for his complete recovery. However, there may be some overlapping on the date of discharge certificate, which is not under control of the claimant and hence, there is nothing to disbelieve the claimant only on the ground that in the Exhibit-2, there is some overlapping on the date as well as there a note “improve”. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant further relied on a decision of this Court, passed in MAC Appeal No. 135/2014, wherein, in paragraph Nos. 5 & 6, it has been held as under: “5. It is to be borne in mind that in a proceeding before the MACT, it is not necessary to prove the facts by evidence beyond reasonable doubt and the standard of proof in such proceeding can never by higher than that of preponderance of probability. While appreciating evidence in a proceeding for compensation, Tribunals are supposed to take a holistic view and consider the evidence in a broader perspective and should not succumb to the hyper technicalities or nicety of the matter. 6. The impugned judgment and award clearly demonstrated that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence brought on record in its proper perspective and without assigning any reason as to why the unimpeached evidence adduced by the claimant are disbelieved and mechanically dismissed the claim petition. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and award deserved to be set aside. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and award deserved to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award dated 30.03.2013 passed by the MACT, Morigaion in MAC Case No. 121/2008 is set aside.” 11. In this context, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, committed no error or mistake while dismissing the claim petition of the appellant. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, has rightly observed that the only medical document, i.e. the Exhibit-2, is not a believable document where there is overlapping of date and moreover, there is no medical document describing the injuries sustained by him, though it is claimed that he sustained injury on his person due to motor vehicle accident. Further, in Exhibit-5, the X-Ray report, there is also overlapping in the name of the patient as well as the date of the X-Ray. Further, the learned Court below has also rightly held that the Exhibit-33 is a document which shows that the claimant is a job card holder, though it is claimed by him that he was working as a labour in the offending truck at the relevant time of incident. Further, the owner of the truck, i.e. the O.P. No. 1, also nowhere mentioned that the claimant was working temporarily as a labour and he was engaged on the relevant day of incident for unloading the truck. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaion, committed no error or mistake while passing the judgment and order warranting any interference of this Court. 12. After hearing the submissions of learned counsels for both sides, I have carefully perused the judgment and case record of MAC Case No. 139/2009. 13. It is an admitted fact that the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2, i.e. the owner and the insurer of the vehicle, did not cross-examine the P.W.-1 and the case proceeded exparteagainst the claimant. But, it is the duty of the claimant to prove his case and only because the case proceeded exparte, it cannot be held that the evidence or the claim of the appellant is an unimpeached peace of evidence. But, it is the duty of the claimant to prove his case and only because the case proceeded exparte, it cannot be held that the evidence or the claim of the appellant is an unimpeached peace of evidence. It is the claim of the appellant that he sustained grievous injury on his person due to motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 12.08.2009, and for which, he had to take treatment as an indoor patient from 12.08.2009 to 19.08.2009 at Morigaon Civil Hospital. As per the claim petition, he was immediately took to Jhargaon P.H.C., wherefrom he was referred to Morigaon Civil Hospital for treatment, though in his evidence he has not stated about the treatment took in the Jhargaon P.H.C. In this context, the claimant also failed to produce any document to prove that initially he was taken to Jhargaon P.H.C. for treatment. Except one discharge certificate, i.e. the Exhibit-2, there is no other medical documents to substantiate the pleas that the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his person due to accident. It is rightly observed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, that the Discharge Certificate/Exhibit-2, there is overlapping of date and there is also note “improve” on the said certificate. However, the note “improve” not necessarily carries the meaning of recovery or full recovery of the injury. There is no other supporting medical documents to prove that he was treated as an indoor patient in Morigaon Civil Hospital since 12.08.2009 to 19.08.2009. 14. Further, the claimant/appellant produced good numbers of medical prescription from Dr. Ajay Kr. Phukan, which is given from 22.08.2009 till 19.02.2010. But, without any proper medical document, there is reason for suspicion as regards to genuinity of the prescription issued by Dr. Ajay Kr. Phukan within a short period of 6 (six) months. Thus, the reason for suspicion, as observed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, cannot outrightly be rejected. 15. Moreso, it is seen that the claimant also exhibited one X-Ray report as Exhibit-5. But in the said Exhibit also, there is overlapping not only on the date but also in the name of the claimant. Thus, the reason for suspicion, as observed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, cannot outrightly be rejected. 15. Moreso, it is seen that the claimant also exhibited one X-Ray report as Exhibit-5. But in the said Exhibit also, there is overlapping not only on the date but also in the name of the claimant. However, the claimant exhibited one advice slip of one Guwahati Medical College & Hospital, dated 10.09.2009, but the same has not been mentioned in his claim petition as well as in the evidence that he took any treatment for his accident in the Guwahati Medical College & Hospital as an outdoor patient on 10.09.2009. 16. Further, the judgment of this Court, relied by the learned counsel for the appellant, is not applicable in the present case. In the said judgment, it was observed that without any proper appreciation of evidence and without considering the legal evidence brought on record, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, dismissed the claim petition only on the ground that the accident information report was not prepared by the police officer immediately after the accident. But, the facts and circumstances of the present case is completely different and here in the instant case, the evidence is well appreciated by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, while passing the impugned judgment & order dated 05.02.2014, in MAC Case No. 139/2009. 17. So, from the entire discussions made above, it is seen that there is sufficient ground for suspicion on the genuinity of the documents produced by the claimant/appellant before the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, also discussed the entire evidence on record as well as the documents which were exhibited by the claimant and after appreciation of entire evidence on record as well as the exhibits, the claim petition of the appellant was dismissed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, and hence, I find that vide the impugned judgment & order, dated 05.02.2014, passed in MAC Case No. 139/2009, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, Assam, committed no error or mistake requiring any interference of this Court. 18. It is the settled principle of law that one who seeks equity should come before the Court with clean hands. 18. It is the settled principle of law that one who seeks equity should come before the Court with clean hands. But, here in the instant case, it is evident from the exhibited documents of the claimant that there is sufficient reason for suspicion in respect of the genuineness of the exhibits on which the entire claim of the claimant/appellant was based on. 19. In the result, I find no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. 20. Send down the record to the learned Court below.