Heard Mr. K.K. Bhatta learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appears on call for the respondent.

2. The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are the claimants in MAC Case No.1998/03 which was tried by the Court of learned Additional Judge (FTC) No.2-cum-Member MACT, Kamrup, Guwahati. The respondent No.7 is the owner of the offending vehicle and the respondent No.8 is the driver of the offending vehicle.

3. The case of the claimants is that on 10.09.2003 at about 5 p.m., the deceased Munin Rabha was on his way from Ouphula towards Chhaygaon on his bicycle on the N.H. No.37 and on reaching Kharkhari a truck bearing registration No. AS-01-N-9895 came at a very high speed and hit the deceased from behind. As a result of the accident the deceased suffered multiple injuries. He was immediately taken to Chhaygaon PHC for treatment. However, he succumbed to his injuries. The claimant filed the claim petition stating that the deceased was 29 years of age at the time of his death and he had left behind his wife and 5 minor children. It was claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.6500/- per month.

4. One bystander namely Shri Madan Kalita alias Kamal Kalita (PW6) who had seen the road accident had rushed to the Chhaygaon Police Station and had narrated the incident to the police personnel at Chhaygaon Police Station. On the basis of the statement a GD entry being numbered 193/2003 dated 10.09.2003 was made in respect of the said information.

5. In course of the trial the claimant examined 6 (six) witnesses. The claimant No.1 namely Smt. Hananiah Rabha was examined as PW1, Shri. Hiren Mali, an eye witness was examined as PW2, one Sri. Lalit Sarma who was working as the SI of Chhaygaon police department was examined as PW3, one Ghana Kanta Deka who was also attached to Chhaygaon Police Station as SI was examined as PW4, Mr. Madan Das who was an eye witness was examined as PW5 and Shri. Madan Kalita who had informed the police of the accident was an eye witness was examined as PW6. The PW1 had proved the accident information report as Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2. The post-mortem report was proved as Exhibit-3. A certificate issued by the Gaon Burha to show the income of the deceased was proved as Exhibit-4 (under objection). The certificate issued by the Circle officer to show the income of the deceased was proved as Exhibit-5 (under objection). In the cross-examination she had stated that she was not an eye witness to the accident.

6. PW2 has said that his evidence that the offending truck bearing registration No. AS-01-N-9895 had caused the accident dealing injuries sustained by the deceased. He stated that he along with 2/3 people had put the deceased in an Auto and took him to the Chhaygaon PHC. However, the hospital declared the injured as dead on arrival. The dead body was taken back to the house of the deceased on the next day. Thereafter the next day, post mortem was conducted on the dead body. He had stated that the offending vehicle was seen by him at the police station on the next day.

7. The PW3 stated that on 10.09.2003 one Madan Kalita had come to Chayygaon Police Station and informed the officer-in-charge of the accident. The officer-in-charge had directed that the investigation would be conducted by Shri. G. Deka the ASI of the police station. He proved the GD entry being numbered 193/2003 dated 10.09.2003 as Exhibit-6. In his cross-examination, the said SI of police had stated that from the GD entry he could not say that which vehicle was involved in the accident. He admitted that no FIR was lodged in respect of the said accident. He stated that on preliminary enquiry when rash and negligent driving is found to have caused the accident, an FIR is required to be lodged but he could not say as to why in the particular case the FIR was not lodged.

8. PW4 who had investigated the case had stated in his evidence that he found the offending vehicle and it was seized which was registered as AS-01-N-9895. He stated that he h