The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the insurance policy, coverage of the deceased as an employee, and the concept of gratuitous passenger in the context of a motor accident claim under the M.V. Act, 1988.

A.C. Upadhyay, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and Award dated 09.04.2009 passed by the learned MAC Tribunal, Sonamura, West Tripura in connection with Case No. T.S. (MAC) 47 of 2008.

2. I have heard Mr. DK Biswas, learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Counsel, appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Counsel, appearing for the Respondent No. 4.

3. Brief facts, leading to filing of this appeal, are as follows:

On 07.06.2008 around 3.30 p.m., the husband of the claimant No. 1 was traveling in the lorry bearing No. TR-01-H-1702, as a labourer, as it was carrying sand to Kumariaguchha. When the vehicle reached near the house of Krishna Das on the Bagmara to Padmanagar road, it dashed against a road-side tilla and capsized. As a result, her husband sustained severe injuries on his lower abdomen and accordingly, he was shifted to Melaghar Hospital, from where he was shifted to G.B. Hospital. He was operated upon on the same day. Unfortunately, on 14.06.2008, the husband of the claimant succumbed to the injuries. On the next day, the post mortem examination was performed and the dead body was brought to the residence of the claimant by hiring a vehicle. The claimant claimed that the deceased was attached to the offending vehicle as a permanent labourer for the purpose of loading and unloading, being employed by the owner of the vehicle and the deceased used to earn about Rs. 6,000/- per month as salary including the food expenses.

4. The owner, driver and the Insurance Company were made parties in the claim petition. The owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company entered appearance and submitted written statement.

5. However, Respondent No. 2 the driver did not appear to contest the claim.

6. Written statement filed by the owner admitted that the deceased-husband of the claimant was working as a labourer in the vehicle involved in the accident.

7. The Appellant-Insurance Company contested the claim by filing statement denying accident and also pleaded that the deceased was traveling as gratuitous passenger in the goods carrying vehicle. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:

(i) Did Rabindra Das die on 13-06-08 due to sustaining of injury in a road traffic accident on 07-06-08 at Kumariaguchha over the Bagmara to Padmanagar road involving vehicle No. TR-01-H-1702 (truck) due to its rash or negligent driving?

(ii) Are the claimants entitled to get compensation under the provision of M.V. Act, 1988? If so, to what extent and who shall be liable to pay the same?

8. To establish the case, the claimant examined herself as witness and also exhibited documents relating to the treatment of the deceased and the post mortem report etc.

9. P.W. 1 was cross-examined by the Respondent opposite party. However, the opposite party-Respondent did not adduce any witness in this case. On the basis of the evidence, adduced in the proceeding, the Tribunal assessed the daily income of the deceased at Rs. 150/- per day and awarded a sum of Rs. 6,28,431/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition and thereafter, at the rate of 9; per annum till realization.

10. Being aggrieved by the award, the insurance company has preferred this appeal.

11. The Appellant-Insurance Company on examination of the documents submitted by the claimant-Respondents found the following facts, which according to the learned Counsel for the Appellant is incongruous:

(i) The impleaded owner of the vehicle Shri Madhab Deb purchased the Vehicle TR-01-H-1702 a Goods carrying Truck from one Ramdhari Prasad.

(ii) Ramdhari had his insurance which was endorsed in favour of Shri Madhab Deb effectively from 25-06-2008 (18 days after the accident).

(iii) Madhab Deb endorse the policy in his name on 25-06-2008 both the documents viz., endorsement and the new policy in favour of Madhab Deb which were proved in evidence and the said docum