JUDGMENT : MALASRI NANDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The appellant, being the president of Weaving Centre Management Committee Katpuha, Nalbari, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.07.2020 passed by learned member MACT, Kamrup(M) in MAC Case No. 226/2015 awarding amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupess One Lakh) in favour of the appellant. 3. The appellant filed the claim petition being MAC Case No. 226/2015 before the learned Member MACT, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati u/s 166 of the MV act, 1988 for granting compensation of Rs. 10,000,00/- ( Rupees Ten Lakhs) due to damage of the property of weaving centre at Katpuha under Borbhag Development Block, Kamarkuchi, Nalbari due to a motor vehicle accident on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle bearing no. AS-01Z/6593 (Truck). 4. The brief facts of the case is that on 28/08/2013 at about 2 A.M. (night) the offending vehicle AS-01Z/6593 (Truck) driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the building/house of weaving centre at Katpuha, Nalbari causing damage to the household goods and furniture and fixation inside the said weaving centre. In this regard a case was registered vide Nalbari PS Case No. 730/2013 u/s 279/427 IPC. After due investigation into the matter, the case has been charge sheeted against the driver of the offending vehicle AS-01Z/6593 (Truck). 5. It is also stated in the claim petition that the appellant/management committee of the said weaving centre incurred the expenditure for repairing and reconstruction work amounting to Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand). At the time of the accident the offending vehicle was duly insured with Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. 6. During trial the claimant examined two witnesses including himself and marked seven exhibits. On the other hand, the respondent insurance company did not choose to adduce any evidence in support of their case. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that due to the alleged accident, Weaving Centre at Katpuha, Nalbari had been damaged and the managing committee of the weaving centre had repaired and reconstructed the said weaving centre by incurring the expenses of Rs. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that due to the alleged accident, Weaving Centre at Katpuha, Nalbari had been damaged and the managing committee of the weaving centre had repaired and reconstructed the said weaving centre by incurring the expenses of Rs. 4,71,117/- and during trial some money receipts and cash memos were exhibited but the learned trial court failed to consider the damage of the property and the repairing cost of the said building of the weaving centre and lump sum award of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been granted which is palpably low and against the beneficial legislation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company has argued that the appellant/claimant has failed to prove the damage of the property of the weaving centre at Katpuha due to the alleged accident as such they are not entitled to get any compensation. The award assessed by the Trial court in favour of the claimant is perverse and illegal which is liable to be set aside. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the record of MAC Case No. 226/2015 along with the documents available on the record. 10. It is not disputed that the vehicle bearing no AS-01Z/6593 (Tata Truck) was duly insured with Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd at the relevant time of accident. But it cannot be ascertained from the record on which part of the building of the Katpuha weaving centre has been damaged. No photographs of the building of the weaving centre are available in the record to identify the damaged part of the building. According to the claimant and his witness, the incident occurred at 2 A.M. (at night) as such naturally there is no eye witness to the incident at dead of night. It is true that one case was registered after the accident vide Nalbari PS case no 730/2013 u/s 279/427 IPC. According to the claimant and his witness, the incident occurred at 2 A.M. (at night) as such naturally there is no eye witness to the incident at dead of night. It is true that one case was registered after the accident vide Nalbari PS case no 730/2013 u/s 279/427 IPC. One MVI report is also available in the record vide Exhibit-3 which shows the damages sustained by the vehicle AS-01Z/6593 as follows: (i) Front wind shield glass (ii) Front show (iii) Driver cabin (iv) Front bumper (v) Head lamps only (vi) Steering only (vii) Break (viii) Front axle only (ix) Front suspension only As per report of MVI, the vehicle could not be road tested mechanically due to the extent of damages found in it. 11. From the MVI report of the vehicle AS-01Z/6593, it is seen that the aforesaid damages were found in the said vehicle but it is difficult to believe that the offending vehicle got damaged due to the alleged accident. 12. PW-1 Rajek Ali has alleged that on 28.08.2013 at about 2 A.M. (night) the vehicle bearing no AS-01Z/6593 (Truck) coming in a rash and negligent manner, knocked down the weaving centre at Katpuha causing damage thereon. 13. In his cross examination, PW-1 replied that at the time of accident he was not present at the spot. The weaving centre was under SGSY under Borbhag Development Block (Kamarkuchi) of Nalbari district. The said block has not issued any authority letter to him to file the case. He has not submitted any document to prove that he was the president of the house building committee. No surveyor was appointed to ascertain the actual damage of the weaving centre. 14. PW-2 is Chand Mohammad Ali. He deposed in his evidence that he is a government Gaon Bura of Karia Bidiha Revenue Village being appointed by the relevant authority. He personally knew Rajek Ali as president of weaving centre at Katpuha who has been residing at their village Kariakuchi Betkuchi of Nalbari district. The accident occurred on 28.08.2013 at about 2 A.M. (Night) when the offending vehicle bearing no AS-01Z/6593 coming in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the building of Katpuha Weaving centre causing damage thereon. 15. In his cross examination, PW-2 replied that he has not exhibited any document to show that he is the village head man. The accident occurred on 28.08.2013 at about 2 A.M. (Night) when the offending vehicle bearing no AS-01Z/6593 coming in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the building of Katpuha Weaving centre causing damage thereon. 15. In his cross examination, PW-2 replied that he has not exhibited any document to show that he is the village head man. The weaving centre at Katpuha is under government scheme. The building was reconstructed under the aid of government scheme. He could not say about the exact damages of the building. He did not know whether any government registered surveyor was engaged for assessing the damage. He had no any personal knowledge regarding the management of the committee. 16. From the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 it reveals that the government was running a weaving centre at Katpuha, Nalbari at the relevant time of the accident. The SGSY (Swarnjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana) under which the Katpuha weaving centre was working. It also appears that the building was reconstructed with the aid of government scheme. Under such backdrop, the claimant cannot claim any compensation for repairing or reconstruction of the government property. 17. As I have already stated that there is no material or documentary proof available in the record to show that Katpuha weaving centre was damaged due to the vehicular accident on the night of 28.08.2013. It is also seen that no government surveyor or any other surveyor had assessed the damage of weaving centre at Katpuha. In absence of any surveyor’s report regarding the damage of the building, we cannot come to the conclusion that the repairing cost of the building was 4 or 5 Lakhs as stated by the claimant/appellant. 18. Regarding the documentary proof like cash memo and money receipts exhibited in the case, no any witness was examined by the claimant/appellant to prove the said cash memo or receipts issued in connection with supplying of articles or repairing cost of the damaged building. Exhibit 5(1), 5(2), 5(3) and 5(4) are the retail invoice of one Mrinal Enterprise, Karia, Nalbari, which reveals that some articles were purchased from the said shop. Exhibit 5(1), 5(2), 5(3) and 5(4) are the retail invoice of one Mrinal Enterprise, Karia, Nalbari, which reveals that some articles were purchased from the said shop. One person also put his signature for Mrinal Enterprise on the aforesaid exhibits but the said person was not examined in the case to prove the fact that those articles were purchased from his shop on the said date and he issued the receipts in favour of the weaving centre at Katpuha. 19. Exhibit 5(5) and 5(6) are the labour cost of the building amounting to Rs. 81,000/- and Rs. 72,000/-. One Nizam Ali took the said amount i.e. Rs. 81,000/- and Rs. 72,000/- from the president of Katpuha weaving centre but the said Nizam Ali was also not examined by the claimant side to prove the fact whether he had accepted the said amount from the president of Katpuha weaving centre. Under such facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that the appellant/claimant has failed to prove the repairing and reconstruction cost of the building. 20. It is unfortunate that during investigation the investigating officer did not take any initiative to reveal the truth whether any accident occurred involving the vehicle bearing no AS-01Z/6593 causing damage to the building of Katpuha weaving centre. It was the duty of the investigating officer to take photographs of the damaged building to prove the fact that an accident took place causing damage of the Katpuha weaving centre. Though it was alleged by the claimant/appellant that due to the alleged accident along with the building some household goods and furniture and fixations inside the said weaving centre were damaged, but the investigating officer failed to seize any articles to prove the facts in question. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the learned Trial Court erred in awarding compensation in favour of the appellant/claimant amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) for causing damage to the government property. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and order passed by the Member, MACT-1, Kamrup (M), dated 30.07.2020 is set aside. The Insurance Company is given liberty to recover the amount of compensation if paid earlier to the claimant. 22. LCR be returned back.