JUDGMENT 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. 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 documents show that the policy was an "Act Policy" without payment of any additional premium covering the risk of labour. 12. (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 documents show that the policy was an "Act Policy" without payment of any additional premium covering the risk of labour. 12. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the owner of the vehicle Madhab Deb purchased the vehicle bearing No. TR-01-H-1702 as goods carrying vehicle from Ramdhari Prasad, who had his insurance, which was endorsed in favour of Shri Madhab Deb with effect from 25.06.2008. Therefore, at the relevant time of the accident on 07.06.2008, the owner of the vehicle had no insurance coverage. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to reimburse the liability of the owner for payments compensation. 13. Learned Counsel for the insurance company further submitted that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and the policy of insurance being Act policy, the award given by the Tribunal is illegal and untenable in law. 14. Per Contra, Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 4 has submitted that though the offending vehicle was purchased by Madhab Deb prior to the accident, but subsequently, the policy was endorsed from 11.09.2007 to 11.09.2008 in the name of owner of the vehicle i.e. the Respondent No. 4 by formally issuing the Insurance policy for the aforesaid period. On perusal of the relevant Insurance Policy of the owner of the offending vehicle, it appears that there was coverage of Insurance on the date of accident. Since the vehicle in question was duly covered by the policy of the Appellant Insurance Company at the time of accident, the submission of the Appellant's counsel is not tenable. 15. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Counsel further pointed out that it has been admitted by the Respondent No. 4 i.e. the owner of the offending vehicle that the deceased was a salaried employee working in the vehicle, as a loader. Though insurance company has asserted that deceased was a gratuitous passenger of the vehicle at the time of accident, but there is no evidence to support the contention, rather the admission of the owner of the vehicle regarding deceased being a paid employee of the vehicle established with certainty that the deceased was not a gratuitous passenger in the goods carrying vehicle. 16. 16. Apparently, on perusal of the policy of insurance company, it appears that deceased, being an employee of the good carrying vehicle is covered by the insurance policy. 17. In view of my above discussion, I do not notice any infirmity or illegality in the award made by the learned Tribunal. The impugned award do not warrant any interference in appeal by this Court. 18. Upon careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the grounds agitated by the Appellant, in this appeal is devoid of merit, Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, I pass no order as to cost. 19. In view of the above, the Appellant insurance company is hereby directed to pay the awarded amount within a period of two months from today, with interest as indicated in the award without fail. 20. The appeal stands disposed of. 21. Send back the L.C.R. with a copy of this order. Appeal dismissed.