The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement of claimants against the Insurance Company and the assessment of income for compensation purposes are determined based on the ownership of the policy and the nature of the work performed by the claimants.

P.B. Bajanthri, J.

In all these appeals the appellant Insurance Company have questioned the validity of the common judgment dated 16.01.2015 passed in E.C.A. No. 248/2014, 232/2014, and 378/2014 on the file of the III Addl. Sr. Civil Judge & MACT & Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Belagavi.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, respondents including the deceased were working as Labourers in the bore well rigging vehicle bearing reg. no. KA-01-D-9697 belongs to the respondent No.1-P.Chandrashekaran. The said bore well rigging vehicle was driven by one Raja and they were proceeding from Chikkodi to Belagavi. The bore well truck fell down on the eastern side of the bridge and fell in the river and caused accident near Borgalli village on Chikkodi-Belagavi road, due to which, one person died. Their LRs Sri Sahadsai and Smt. Savithri and the other injured persons have filed claim petitions. The MACT proceeded to award compensation to the claimants as follows:

1. E.C.A. No. 248/2014 Rs.8,72,640/-

2. E.C.A. No. 232/2014 Rs.1,54,608/-

3. E.C.A. No. 378/2014 Rs.2,66,488/-

M.F.A. No. 101182/2015:

3. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company address arguments in two folds, one is that, undisputedly, the deceased and injured persons were working with the Bore Well Company-Surya Bore Well, whereas the policy in relation to the truck which is involved in the accident stood in the name of one P. Chandrashekharan. Therefore the contract is between the insurance company and Chandrashekharan. Consequently, the persons who are working with the Surya Bore Well Company are not entitled to any claim against the Insurance Company, since policy is covered in the name of P. Chandrashekaran.

4. It was further contended that income of the deceased and other injured persons have been taken at Rs.8,000/- per month, which is on higher side. Hence, the appellant counsel seeks to set aside the M.A.C.T. award or in the alternative, to modify the award while reducing the income of the deceased as well as the injured persons.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that there is no infirmity in the M.A.C.T award. It was contended that in the complaint- Ex.P.2 the complainant has specifically stated that owner of the vehicle is Chandrashekharan P.-respondent No.1. At the same time, there is no dispute that Chandrashekharan. P. is the owner of the Surya Bore Well where the deceased and injured persons were working. Consequently, the contention of the appellant to the extent that the policy stands in the name of Chandrashekharan.P and the deceased and injured persons were working with the Bore Well Company has no relationship, cannot be accepted.

6. It was also contended that the author of the complaint has not been examined so as to elicit whether owner of the bore well company is P.Chandrashekharan or not. In other words, the complainant's statement has been accepted/admitted.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that taking income of the deceased and injured persons at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month is reasonable having regard to the date of accident is on 10.08.2011. Therefore, the appellants have not made out a case so as to interfere with the award.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

9. The two fold arguments of the appellant counsel are that, claimants cannot claim anything against the appellant Insurance Company on the score that the truck stands in the name of P. Chandrashekharan whereas deceased and injured persons were working with the Surya Bore Well Company. The said contention cannot be accepted for the reasons that the Insurance Company have not elicited any material to the extent that owner of the Surya Bore Well Company is other than P. Chandrashekharan-respondent No.1, in whose name the policy stands. On the other hand, complainant has stated, P. Chandrashekharan is owner of the Surya Bore Well Company. Therefore, the contention of the appellant