JUDGMENT : MALASRI NANDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. T. Kalita, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant challenging the judgment and order dated 29.06.2018 passed by the Member MACT, Nalbari in MAC Case No 20/2016. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the appellants/claimants have filed a claim case praying for compensation before the MACT, Nalbari on account of the death of the husband of appellant/claimant no 1 and father of appellants/claimants nos. 2, 3 and 4, arising out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 21.08.2013. It is stated in the claim petition that the deceased was working as a cleaner for different goods laden trucks plying on different routes and his one trip generally lasted for about 7 to 10 days. The appellants/claimants came to know about the accident only on 29.08.2013 i.e. after the dead body was disposed of by the police due to want of identification of the dead body. The appellant initially filed an application u/s 163 A of MV Act but subsequently they have filed a separate petition u/s 166 of the MV Act. Since the dead body was not identified by any person during post mortem examination and none has mentioned earlier that the deceased was a regular cleaner, the learned Tribunal without any basis has held that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and the respondents no 2 and 3 i.e. the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle were directed to pay the awarded amount. 4. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.06.2018 passed by the Member MACT, Nalbari, the appellant has preferred this appeal before this court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal has erred in law as it held that the deceased was not a cleaner of the offending truck but he was a gratuitous passenger and without any application of judicious mind directed the respondent nos. 2 and 3 i.e. the owner and driver of the offending truck to pay the awarded amount. 6. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal did not consider the evidence of PW-3, the investigating officer who conducted the investigation on the accident. 2 and 3 i.e. the owner and driver of the offending truck to pay the awarded amount. 6. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal did not consider the evidence of PW-3, the investigating officer who conducted the investigation on the accident. According to him, the driver of the said offending vehicle disclosed before him that he picked up one person from Nalbari as there was no handyman in his vehicle. When the truck was overturned, the said person jumped from the offending vehicle. But despite the clear fact that the deceased boarded in the offending vehicle for unloading of its goods, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and wrongly directed the driver and owner of the offending vehicle to pay the awarded amount instead of directing the insurance company which is totally illegal and perverse and liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company has contended that it was not proved by the claimant’s side that late Biren Bezbarauh died due to the alleged accident. The GD entry no 385 dated 21.08.2013 shows that an unidentified person was knocked down by a truck. It is also submitted that the insurance company denied the death of the deceased in the accident in question as the name of the deceased did not find place either in the charge sheet or in the post mortem examination report wherein the name of the deceased was written as unidentified. Learned counsel for the insurance company also referred the FIR lodged by the claimant wherein it is mentioned that his father was travelling in the truck and failed to mention the very important fact that his father was travelling as a cleaner in the said truck. Under such backdrop, Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 8. I have considered the submissions for the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the record of MAC case no 20/2016 and the documents available thereon. 9. It is an admitted fact that the dead body of the deceased was not identified after the accident and which was disposed of by the police of Mangaldoi police station after statutory period. As such it cannot be said that the deceased died due to accident by involving the vehicle WB- 41G/1905 (Truck). 9. It is an admitted fact that the dead body of the deceased was not identified after the accident and which was disposed of by the police of Mangaldoi police station after statutory period. As such it cannot be said that the deceased died due to accident by involving the vehicle WB- 41G/1905 (Truck). It appears from the record of trial court that three witnesses were examined by the claimants during trial. CW-1 Chandan Bezbaruah, one of the claimants claimed to be the son of deceased Biren Bezbaruah. CW2 is Manoranjan Sharma neighbour of the deceased. PW-3 is Narendra Hazarika, the investigating officer. 10. After going through the evidence of PW-1, 2 and 3 it reveals that they were not present when the accident occurred. PW-1 and PW-2 nowhere stated that how they came to know about the accident by stating that on 21.08.2013 at about 9 PM while the deceased was proceeding from Akhara towards Tezpur as cleaner of the vehicle bearing no WB- 41G/1905 (Truck), the said vehicle met with an accident at Karaiguri Narikali under Sipajhar PS due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle. It is also alleged that the vehicle became out of control of the driver due to excessive speed and its break did not work and when it took a turn at Karaiguri Narikali under Sipajhar PS, the vehicle turned turtle. Due to the alleged accident the deceased fell down from the vehicle and the vehicle ran over him as a result of which he sustained crushed injuries on his head and other parts of his body and died on the spot. 11. In his cross examination, CW-1 replied that they had withdrawn earlier MAC case bearing no 332/13 which was filed before the tribunal. His father worked as a cleaner/helper of a truck. The accident occurred on 21.08.2013 at Karaiguri under Sipajhar PS. They came to know about the accident after eight (8) days. They did not see the dead body of their father which had been disposed of by the police of Sipajhar PS. They were informed by the Sipajhar police that the dead body was of their father having seen his photographs which they had taken with them. 12. CW-1 in his cross examination also admitted that in the FIR he stated that the accident occurred due to mechanical defect of the truck. They were informed by the Sipajhar police that the dead body was of their father having seen his photographs which they had taken with them. 12. CW-1 in his cross examination also admitted that in the FIR he stated that the accident occurred due to mechanical defect of the truck. He did not mention in the FIR that his father was a helper/cleaner. He did not meet the owner or the driver at Sipajhar PS. It is also admitted that he has not filed any documentary evidence to prove that his father worked as a cleaner/helper in the truck. 13. CW-2 replied in his cross examination that his resident is located in front of the house of the deceased. He did not witness the accident. He did not visit Sipajhar. He did not know the owner, the driver or the handyman of the offending truck. He never saw the deceased going in any truck at times. As he belongs to the same village, he came to depose as a witness on being requested by the claimant. 14. From the evidence of CW-1 and 2, it is seen that after filing of the FIR the investigation was started and after completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending truck u/s 279/304(A) IPC alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said vehicle. Admittedly none of the witnesses were examined who had seen the accident. As per the Judgment of the Learned Tribunal referring some case laws like Ranubala Pal vs. Bani Chakrabarty and Others and N.K.V. Brothers (P) Ltd vs. M. Karumai Ammal and Others, it is true that a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is neither a criminal case nor a civil case and in a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal the standard of proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in a civil case but there must be some material before the Tribunal on the basis of which the Tribunal can come to the conclusion regarding accident or awarding compensation. 15. In the case in hand, the claimants have filed the claim petition claiming compensation for the death of their husband/father in the accident in question which occurred on 21.08.2013 at about 9 P.M. at Karaiguri Narikali under Sipajhar PS. 15. In the case in hand, the claimants have filed the claim petition claiming compensation for the death of their husband/father in the accident in question which occurred on 21.08.2013 at about 9 P.M. at Karaiguri Narikali under Sipajhar PS. As I have already mentioned that there is no eye witness to the accident. The only evidence found in the record that the driver of the offending truck took one person with him in the said truck from Nalbari and just before the accident he had jumped from the said truck. 16. PW-3 the investigating officer deposed before the Trial court that on 21.08.2013 he was posted at Sipajhar PS. As per GD entry no 385 dated 21.08.2013 based on telephonic information, he along with OC, Sipajhar PS went to Karaiguri where an accident took place involving one truck. On arriving the place of occurrence he noticed one Potato laden/carrying truck bearing no WB-41G/1905 fell on a ditch by the side of the road. They also found one dead body of a middle aged man whose body was lying by the side of the road. The tyres of the truck had run over the dead body causing injury to his head and the right shoulder and the right hand region. On inquiry the person assembled there informed him that the said truck had hit the person whose dead body was found but they could not identify the dead body. 17. PW-3 further stated that as the dead body could not be identified, he made a prayer before the District Magistrate, Mangaldoi for post mortem examination as well as for preservation of the dead body for 72 hours. After expiry of 72 hours he again made a prayer before the District Magistrate for disposal of the dead body. Before disposal of the dead body he took photographs of the dead body and the wearing apparels/clothes were preserved. Thereafter, the dead body was duly disposed of. 18. According to PW-3, he recorded the statement of the driver of the offending vehicle and the said driver stated before him that the potato laden truck was proceeding from Nalbari side towards Tezpur. As there was no handyman, the driver took one person with him in the truck from Nalbari. The accident occurred as the steering wheel turned towards the left side. As there was no handyman, the driver took one person with him in the truck from Nalbari. The accident occurred as the steering wheel turned towards the left side. The driver saw the said person jumping from the truck at the time of the accident. 19. From the evidence of PW-3, it discloses that an accident occurred on 21.08.2013 at Karaiguri Narikali under Sipajhar PS and one person died due to the alleged accident. The dead body of an unidentified person was noticed on the spot of accident. PW-3 arrived on the spot after some hours of the accident. He came to know from the nearby people who gathered on the spot that the truck which was found on the accidental spot hit the person whose dead body was found on the spot. If we believe the statement of the person gathered on the spot, we could come to the conclusion that the deceased was not travelling in the said truck as such whatever stated by the driver of the offending vehicle cannot be taken into consideration. 20. Admittedly the driver was arrested by police and he was the right person to give some light on the fact that how the accident occurred and the person travelling with him was the deceased husband/father of the claimants. It is not clear from the evidence of PW-3 that the person who died in the accident and the person who was travelling with the driver was one and the same person. Charge Sheet also did not disclose the name of the person who died in the accident. Before filing of the charge sheet the Investigating officer should take initiative to enquire the matter regarding the name of the deceased. PW-3 clearly stated in his evidence that the driver did not tell him the name of the person accompanying him in the truck from Nalbari. It reveals that from the photographs and the wearing apparels of the deceased the claimant Chandan Bezbaruah identified the deceased as his father but the statement of Chandan Bezbaruah did not reveal that he identified the wearing apparels /clothes of the deceased. From the evidence of PW-3 it also appears that he did not know the claimants or the deceased. He never visited the village Akkhara, Nalbari during investigation. Chandan Bezbaruah did not show any documentary proof that he is the son of the deceased Biren Bezbaruah. 21. From the evidence of PW-3 it also appears that he did not know the claimants or the deceased. He never visited the village Akkhara, Nalbari during investigation. Chandan Bezbaruah did not show any documentary proof that he is the son of the deceased Biren Bezbaruah. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as under the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the claimants have failed to prove the identity of the person who died in the accident. According to CW-1 he identified the wearing apparels of his father and the photographs available at Sipajhar Police Station. But the said wearing apparels and the photographs were not seized during investigation as such no any material is available at the hands of this Court on the basis of which we could arrive at a conclusion that the deceased was the husband/father of the claimants. 22. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The claimants are not entitled to get any compensation. The Judgment and order passed by the learned member MACT, Nalbari, dated 29.06.2018 in MAC case no 20(death)/2016 is set aside. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 23. Send down the LCR.