JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A. Z. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company assailing the Judgment and Award dated 31.05.2017, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Dhubri in MAC Case No. 111/2014.

3. The claimant’s case in brief is that on 29.01.2014 at about 02:50 PM, while his wife, Bharati Barman was on her way from her place of work at Ranpagli PHC to her house as pillon rider on a motor cycle bearing registration No. AS-16-A-6802, due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle, she was thrown off the seat of the motor cycle and fell down and later she had succumbed to her injures.

4. The claim proceeded against the owner and the rider of the motor cycle ex-parte. However, the Insurance Company contested the claim by filing written statement. They had taken usual pleas including non compliance of Section 158(6) as the I.O. has not forwarded the documents with regard to the insured to the Insurance Company. It was a further stand that the contract of insurance with the insured being subject to payment of premium, the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the insured shall depend upon validity of such contract.

5. The claimant laid 3 witnesses in support of the claim including the claimant himself as PW-1, one eye witness to the accident, which was PW-2 and another person PW-3 to prove the salary certificate of the deceased wife of the claimant, who was working as an ANM under Halakura Block PHC. The Insurance Company examined one Administrative Officer of the Company as DW-1 and one Junior Assistant of DTO, Dhubri as DW-2. The claimant exhibited 6 (six) documents including F.I.R., Charge-Sheet, Post Mortem Report, Salary Certificate of the deceased, Identity Card of the deceased and HSCL pass certificate for proof of age of the deceased.

6. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal below held that the insurance is liable to pay compensation to the claimant and the compensation was determined to be an amount of Rs. 23,07,192/-with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition.

7. The insurance company has urged that the learned Tribunal below while awarding the claim wrongly determined the income of the deceased inasmuch as the deceased was a contractual employee and not a permanent ANM. It is further contended that there was no evidence on record that the income of the contractual employee will get enhanced and therefore, the learned Tribunal has wrongly calculated the future prospect to be 30%. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly accepted the salary certificate of a contractual worker in equal purulence to the salary certificate of a permanent employee. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal below is deserved to be modified.

8. Per contra, Mr. A. Z. Ahmed, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent No. 1, argues that the learned Tribunal below has not committed any error of law inasmuch as the salary certificate was duly proved and as an ANM, she had always future prospect, whether she works under a contractual job or in a permanent job for the reason of for her qualification and specialisation.

9. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. Also perused the materials available on records including the deposition and the exhibits.

10. Since, the grievance of the appellant relates to the income of the deceased, this Court has perused the salary certificate. Said salary certificate was exhibited as Exhibit-5 by the claimant as PW-1 and PW-3 was brought to the witness box to prove the salary certificate.

11. PW-3 is the Block Accounts Manager of office of the SDM&HO under Halakura PHC, where the deceased wife of the claimant worked. He brought the original salary statement of ANM under Halakura Block PHC for the month of December, 2013 and exhibited the