JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr R.C. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company and Mr R. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant.

2. The Insurance Company/appellant is on appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the Judgment and Order dated 22.07.2015, passed by the learned Member, MACT No. 3, Kamrup, at Guwahati, awarding an amount of Rs. 7,73,000/-, against the appellant, along with an interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing till payment.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 05.02.2005, the respondent No. 1/claimant’s son, i.e., the deceased, Md Karim Mullah was travelling from Barpeta towards Guwahati by the Vehicle No. AS-15-1438 (Truck), as a labour of the said vehicle. At about 07:30 am, said vehicle met with an accident at village Sariha Chakla on 31 No. National Highway, under Patacharkuchi Police Station, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle and as a result, the deceased, Md Karim Mullah, the son of the respondent No. 1/claimant died on the spot. Immediately, after the occurrence, a case was registered before the Patacharkuchi Police Station vide Patacharkuchi PS Case No. 26 of 2005, under Sections 279/304 (A) IPC.

4. The further case of the respondent No. 1/claimant was that his deceased son was 18 years of age at the time of accident and he was a labour of the vehicle No. AS-15-0438 and thereby earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. The deceased died leaving behind the respondent No. 1/claimant, his mother, his grand-mother and his sister.

5. On receipt of the notices, the appellant/Insurance Company as opposite party No. 1, and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, appeared and filed their respective written statements.

6. The appellant/Insurance Company in their written statement has denied the statement of allegations and wanted strict proof of facts and documents, such as age, occupation of the deceased, valid and effective driving license of the driver of the vehicle and prayed to dismiss the claim of the claimant against opposite party No. 1.

7. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., the owner and driver of the vehicle No. AS-15-0438, in their written statement have denied the statement of allegations and stated that the deceased was not the labour or employee of the vehicle and his monthly income was not Rs. 6,000/-. Further, they stated that the respondent No. 3/driver drove the vehicle with due risk, but it is quite unknown how the deceased fell in the accident. Moreover, at the relevant time of accident, the driver had valid license and the truck was duly insured with the appellant/Insurance Company and the insurer, i.e., the appellant/Insurance Company is wholly responsible as well as liable to make payment of the claim, if awarded in favour of the claimant/respondent No. 1.

8. During trial, the claimant/respondent No. 1 had examined one witness. However, no witness was examined by the opposite parties. After hearing both sides, the learned Tribunal, vide Judgment and Order dated 22.07.2015, passed the Judgment and Award as aforesaid.

9. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order dated 22.07.2015, the appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, Mr R C Paul, has argued that respondent No. 1/claimant has impleaded the owner and the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-15-0438 (Truck) and the owner of the said vehicle in his written statement had denied the statement of allegations and also stated that at the time of accident, i.e., on 05.02.2005, the deceased Md Karim Mullah was not the labour or employee of his vehicle and his monthly income was also not known to him and that his driver also did not know about the deceased who met with the accident. Further, the owner of the offending