The central legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurance company to satisfy the compensation award in a motor vehicle accident case, based on the evidence of the deceased's employment and the insurance policy coverage.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

Mir Alfaz Ali, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.R. Agarwal, leaned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.C. Paul, learned counsel for the Respondent/Insurance Company.

2. This appeal by the claimant is against the judgment and award dated 19.11.2015 passed by the MACT, No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No. 620/2010.

3. Jakir Hussain, husband of the claimant No. 1 died, in a motor vehicle accident on 23.02.2010, while he was travelling in the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-12-E-2368 as handyman. The vehicle was owned by the respondent No. 2 and insured with the respondent No. 1, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. The wife and children of Late Jakir Hussain filed an application praying for compensation and the learned MACT by the impugned award granted a compensation of Rs. 10,94,000/-. Learned Tribunal directed the owner of the vehicle, the respondent No. 2, to satisfy the award.

4. Aggrieved by the above judgment and award, the claimant filed this appeal.

5. Learned counsel Mr. A.R. Agarwal submits that the claimant proved by adducing evidence that the deceased was earning Rs. 4500/- per month at the time of accident. However, the learned Tribunal ignoring the evidence adduced by the claimant, assumed the income as Rs. 4000/- and thereby failed to award a just and fair compensation. Further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as a handyman and employee of the owner of the vehicle and the claimant also adduced evidence to that effect. However, learned Tribunal, without properly appreciating the evidence brought on record, wrongly saddled the responsibility with the owner of the vehicle, the respondent No. 2 to satisfy the award and such finding of the learned Tribunal was erroneous in view of the evidence that the deceased was employee of the owner engaged in the vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant therefore, urged for enhancement of the compensation and also for modification of the direction regarding the liability to satisfy the award.

6. Xxx XXX XXX

7. The claimant stated in his evidence on oath, that the deceased was working as a handyman of the offending vehicle under the respondent No. 2 and used to get a monthly salary of Rs. 4500/-. The claimant also proved a salary certificate purportedly issued by his employer and marked as Ext.6. Learned Tribunal declined to accept the said salary certificate as it was not duly proved by it's author.

8. Having considered the quantum of award on various heads granted by the learned Tribunal and also the future prospect added to the income, I am of the view, that no enhancement in respect of income is necessary. Apparently, the learned Tribunal granted some excess amount on certain heads. Even if the income would have been taken as Rs. 4500/-, the total award would not have been more, than what was awarded, had the Tribunal reasonably awarded the compensation on conventional heads as per the guidelines of the Apex Court. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the claimants do not deserve any further enhancement in the award.

9. So far the liability of the Insurance Company to satisfy the award is concerned, as per the policy, admittedly, besides the driver, two more employees were covered. The claimant stated in his evidence that the deceased was working as handyman and employee of the owner of the offending vehicle and such evidence of the claimant has not been controverted by the Insurance Company. The owner/driver of the offending vehicle filed written statement, wherein both of them admitted that the deceased was a handyman of the offending vehicle at the relevant time.

10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company placing reliance on an FIR lodged by one Jamir Ali and proved as Ext.1 submits, that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as passenger/owner of the goods and as such the Insurance Company was not liable to satisfy the award for violation of the policy condition. The Insurance Company al