JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. N. Rai, learned counsel of the appellant. Also heard Mr. B.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel appeared for the respondent No. 3, namely, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., as well as Ms. S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5, namely, National Company Ltd.

2. By this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellant has challenged judgment and order dated 24.1.2007, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dibrugarh in MACT Case No. 72/2003, whereby the claim petition was dismissed, inter-alia, on the ground that the appellant could not prove her relationship with the deceased, Putul Deka, whom she claimed to be her husband.

3. In the claim petition it was projected that the deceased was a driver of vehicle bearing No. AS-01-D-1440 on 6.4.2001. While he was driving the said vehicle, at about 2.30 AM, another vehicle bearing registration No. AS-23-A-8017, collided with his vehicle, causing his death. The respective owners and the insurers of the both vehicles were made parties to the claim petition.

4. By filing the claim petition which was as MACT Case No. 72/2003, the appellant prayed for compensation of Rs. 5,97,672.

5. Both the insurers, i.e., respondent Nos. 3 and 5 herein had contested the claim by filing their respective written statement, denying the claim. By further taking the usual pleas they had challenged the locus standi of the appellant to file the claim and she was put to strict proof of her claim.

6. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings, framed the following five issues for trial:

(i) Whether the claim petition is maintainable in law & facts?

(ii) Whether the claimant's husband died in a motor vehicle accident?

(iii) Whether insurance policy of the vehicles were valid at the time of accident?

(iv) Whether the claimant is entitled to the amount claim as compensation?

(v) What other relief/reliefs are entitled by the claimant?

7. The appellant examined herself as PW1 and no witness was examined by the respondent Nos. 3 and 5. On considering the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal decided the issue Nos. 1 and 3 in the positive and in favour of the appellant. However, in respect of issue Nos. 2 and 4, considering the evidence of the appellant, specifically her cross-examination, it was held that the appellant had failed to prove that she was the married wife of the deceased or that she was the legal heir of the deceased and accordingly, the claim petition is dismissed.

8. Assailing the said order and the finding recording in respect of the issue Nos. 2 and 4, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the evidence of the appellant that she was a married wife of the deceased was not controverted by any counter evidence and it is submitted that even in the absence of any document, the learned Tribunal ought to have accep ted that the appellant was the wife of the deceased. Moreover, the learned Tribunal ought to have taken a note that no other person(s) had either presented any claim, nor any person had come forward to contest her claim as a bona fide legal representative of the husband of the appellant. Therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have taken cognizance of the fact that she was the mother of a male child borne out of the wedlock with the deceased, whom she had married in Kamakhya Temple. It is further submitted that instead of dismissing the claim on the ground that the appellant was not able to prove the relationship between the appellant and the deceased, the learned Tribunal ought to have provided adequate opportunity to the appellant to prove her marriage.

9. It is further submitted that the claim ought to have been allowed in view of the fact that as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was a social legislation, the learned Tribunal ought to have directed the police to submit a report. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for allowing this appeal and to direct the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 herei