1. As the question involved in both these appeals are identical and as they arise out of the same accident, they are being disposed by this common order.

2. The claimants in claim case No. 15 of 1999 and claim case No. 20 of 1999 aggrieved by the award passed by the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior have filed these appeals seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. Claimants in both these appeals are legal heirs of deceased, Shreekrishna Bhagel and Lallo Singh Bhagel. Shreekrishna Bhagel (M.A. No. 43212002) and Lallo Singh Bhagel (M.A.No. 434/2002) died on 27th May 1999 when they were trying to unload certain marble from truck bearing No. RRG 7031 owned by the respondent No.2, driven by the respondent No.1 and insured with the respondent No.3. It was the case of the claimants that Shreekrishna and Lallo Singh were employed as construction workers were engaged in the work of fixing marble at various work places and were earning Rs. 200/- per day and about Rs.6,000/- per month, on the date of the accident when the truck in question came along with marble, both of them boarded the truck along with two other workers who had come for unloading the material. When the unloading work was in progress, the driver of the truck started the vehicle as a result the truck moved forward and at that time the marble in the truck fell on them and they died. Because of their death, claimants filed the claim petitions wherein the Tribunal has awarded compenation after assessing the monthly income of both the deceased at Rs.2,400/- per month. This appeal by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation is made only on the ground that the monthly income of the deceased have been assessed by the Tribunal wrongly, very much on the lower side and therefore, the appeals for enhancement of the compensation have been filed and prayer made is for treating the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) per month.

4. Shri Arun Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals taking me through the evidence and the material available on record argued that the claimants have proved that the daily income of the deceased persons, Shreekrishna and Lallo Singh to be Rs.200/- per day each and ignoring this valuable evidence, finding recorded is that they are only mazdoor and not skilled workers employed in fixing of marble which is a perverse finding and hence enhancement of the compensation is sought for.

5. Shri Agarwal, learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the vehicle was not insured for coverage of such accidents and there is violation of policy conditions, Insurance Company has filed a cross objection. However, the claim for enhancement is opposed by the Insurance Company on the ground that the monthly income having not been proved, the Tribunal has not committed any error and no case for enhancement is made out.

6. Shri Agarwal, learned counsel for the Insurance Company by taking me through the findings recorded by the Tribunal as contained in paragraph 12 of the award submitted that the findings recorded being just, fair and reasonable, no case is made out for enhancement. Accordingly, he seeks for dismissal of the appeals and exoneration of the Insurance Company from the liability in MA No. 432 of 2002.

7. Before dealing with the question of enhancement claimed in both these appeals, the question of cross-objection filed by the Insurance Company in MA No. 432 of 2002 shall be taken up first.

8. The only objection raised in the cross-objection is that the Insurance Company is not liable to make payment of the compensation as there is violation of policy conditions and the Insurance Company may be exonerated from the liability.

9. A perusal of the award indicates that objection in this regard was raised by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal and issue No.4 was framed to the effect as to whether the Insurance Company is liable to be exo