JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in the appeal being MAC App. No.41 of 2015 and for the respondents No.1 to 5 in the Cross Objection being C.O.(FA) No.07 of 2016 as well as Mr. B. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the cross objector in C.O.(FA) No.07 of 2016 and the respondent No.1 in the appeal being MAC App. No.41 of 2015 and Mr. S. D. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, namely United India Insurance Company Ltd. both in the appeal and in the cross objection. 2. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the insurer at the outset has submitted that the insurer has filed a petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC for accepting one document as an additional evidence being the charge-sheet No.62/2014 dated 31.12.2014 filed in connection with Jirania P.S case No.80 of 2012 under Sections 279/338/307-A of the IPC. Learned counsel for the appellants and the cross objector did not express any reservation about admissibility of the said document and as such, the certified copy of the charge-sheet is admitted in the evidence and accordingly, it is exhibited as Exbt.A/1. The Registry is directed to take out that Exbt.A/1 [the certified copy] from the said application being I.A. No.461/2017 [arising from MAC. App. No.41 of 2015] for additional evidence by replacing the same with a photocopy and place that certified copy of the charge-sheet with the records of the tribunal with the other exhibited documents. 3. Mr. S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the judgment and award dated 07.04.2015 delivered in T.S(MAC) No.174 of 2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala. The tribunal has wrongly read the Exbt.3 series, the medical bills paid by the appellants to the ILS hospitals, Agartala for treatment of the deceased after having received the injuries in the said road traffic accident. There is additional ground as well, which hinges on the determination of the daily wage of the victim as Khalashi @ Rs.250/- per day, which according to the appellants, should be more according to the prevalent market rate. 4. Mr. There is additional ground as well, which hinges on the determination of the daily wage of the victim as Khalashi @ Rs.250/- per day, which according to the appellants, should be more according to the prevalent market rate. 4. Mr. B. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the owner of the offending vehicle [Cross Objector] has submitted that without perusing the insurance policy as placed on record being Exbt. C in series properly, the tribunal has passed the impugned award. Mr. Saha, learned counsel has pointed out that 3(three) workers of the said vehicle are covered by the insurance policy being No.130900/31/11/01/00009332 issued by the United India Insurance Company Ltd., the respondent No.2 in the appeal. From perusal, it surfaces that the policy was valid from 27.12.2011 to midnight on 26.12.2012. 5. Mr. S.D. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the insurer has strenuously argued that on perusal of the charge-sheet it would be apparent that the offending vehicle bearing registration No.TR-03-D-1627 [Bolero Max Truck] owned by the cross-objector was carrying the activists of a mass organization for participating in the meeting when for rash and negligent driving it dashed a road side tree and for abrupt thrust generated there from, the ‘passengers’ received injuries. According to the claim petition, even the appellants had received injuries. For this purpose, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel has referred the additional evidence, the charge-sheet [Exbt.A/1], to this court where it has been clearly stated that the vehicle at the relevant point of time was carrying the activists of a mass organization and it dashed the road side tree for rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Having made such reference, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel has submitted that that aspect of the matter has not been considered by the tribunal. 6. From the other side, Mr. S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. B. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the Cross-Objector have stated that the victim was a Khalashi of the offending vehicle who received the injuries and finally succumbed to those injuries on 18.01.2013. Mr. 6. From the other side, Mr. S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. B. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the Cross-Objector have stated that the victim was a Khalashi of the offending vehicle who received the injuries and finally succumbed to those injuries on 18.01.2013. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has relied on the statement of OPW-1, the cross-objector where he had categorically stated as under: “That, Deceased Sarasing Malsom was labour of my vehicle and on 07/10/2012 at morning he joined his work and upon my instruction driver of my said vehicle namely Bidhya Sagar Jamatia (B.S. Jamatia) and two labourer including Sarasing Malsom started journey from Amarpur to reach at Agartala via Teliamura for loading and carrying cow dung from Goala Basti, Agartala, but at about 11.45 A.M when they reached at Baramura Hill near Bankumari Temple on 44 NH (Assam-Agartala Road) the vehicle met with an accident and they sustained injury and after long treatment Sarasing Malsom was died on 18/01/2013.” According to OPW-1, the victim used to earn a sum of Rs.10,500/- per month as a labour of his vehicle. He has further stated that the vehicle was being driven by one Bidya Sagar Jamatia with valid driving license which is also the part of the record. 7. Mr. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the cross objector has submitted that the insurance company though filed the written statement but did not raise any plea that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was being used for any unauthorised purpose. Mr. Saha, learned counsel has taken this court to the entire written statement filed by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. on 11.08.2014 where there is not a whisper that the vehicle was used for any unauthorised purpose. Rather, in Paras-13 and 18 of the said written statement the objections as raised by the insurer are that there was no collusion of the injured victim with the owner of the offending vehicle and the accident occurred only due to the fault of the injured victim himself. They have also raised the objection that they are not liable to pay any amount of compensation by means of indemnification of the cross objector. They have further contended that the driving license was for non-transport vehicle obtained from the state of Manipur. They have also raised the objection that they are not liable to pay any amount of compensation by means of indemnification of the cross objector. They have further contended that the driving license was for non-transport vehicle obtained from the state of Manipur. True it is that there is no whisper even for unauthorised carrying of the activists of a mass organization by the said vehicle as reflected in the F.I.R. No attempt has even been made in this court for amending the written statement. On the contrary, what has surprised this court is that the insurer had even declined to cross-examine OPW-1 when that witness narrated substantively how the accident took place. From Paras-9 and 22 of the claim petition, it appears that rather the claimants had accepted the part of the story as reflected in the charge-sheet by stating that at about 9 am the driver of the said vehicle started the vehicle, along with two labours including the deceased Sarasing Malsom who were inside the vehicle being seated in the front seat of the said vehicle, from Amarpur Bazar towards Agartala via Teliamura for loading and carrying cow dung from Goala Basti, Agartala and when the said vehicle reached at Chachua on Agartala-Amarpur [via Teliamura] road, then 10/12 persons stopped the said vehicle and by force boarded the tailor of the said vehicle. 8. There is no claim, according to Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the insurer, from any of those persons whose presence has been indicated in the charge-sheet but the Khalashi, the victim of the accident, died in the accident and there is no controversy as such. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel on the last lap of his submission has urged before this court to remand the matter for reconsideration and a fresh inquiry. 9. This Court has appreciated the finding of the tribunal in respect of the daily wage of the victim and is not inclined to enhance it but from reading of the Exbt.3, it appears that the determination of the medical expenses is perverse inasmuch as the said document was not properly read. Thus, what has been observed in Para-9 of the impugned judgment and award that the claimants have proved only payment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) is not tenable. Thus, what has been observed in Para-9 of the impugned judgment and award that the claimants have proved only payment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) is not tenable. There is proof that the outstanding balance of Rs.2,16,736.81/- (Two lacs Sixteen thousand Seven hundred Thirty Six and Eighty One paise) was payable to the ILS hospitals, Agartala being the cost of the treatment of the victim. This analogy is entirely unacceptable as it has to be presumed that even if the said amount was not paid, it was the liability of the claimant-petitioners to pay the outstanding of Rs.2,16,736.81/- (Two lacs Sixteen thousand Seven hundred Thirty Six and Eighty One paise).Thus, it should have been included as the expenses of medical treatment. Hence, what has been given as the compensation i.e. Rs.17,12,000/- by the tribunal requires to be enhanced by another sum of Rs.2,16,736.81/-. Thus, the total amount for compensation now would be Rs.19,28,736.81 which may be rounded off at Rs.19,28,740/- (Rupees Nineteen lacs Twenty Eight thousand Seven hundred Forty). The said amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 26.04.2013 till realization. The tribunal’s direction regarding how to manage and disburse the amount shall remain un-interfered which reads as under: “The funeral expenses of Rs.25,000/- and the compensation of loss of consortium of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be paid to the claimant no.1. Similarly, compensation for deprivation of father’s love and affection of Rs.50,000/- each shall be paid to the minor claimant nos.2 to 5. The balance amount with interest shall be divided into 6(six) units 2 (two) units shall go to the share of claimant no.1 and 1(one) unit each to the share of minor claimant nos.2 to 5. 12. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Tripura rendered in MAC APP No.36 of 2006 between Sri Joydeep Chakraborty and Sri Pintu Sharma and another on 05.12.2013 and communicated to the Tribunals in Tripura with a direction to follow the guidelines laid down therein and claimants being depended on the income of the deceased, it is ordered that 60% of the share of the claimant no.1 shall be kept in fixed deposit in her sole name at the UCO Bank, District Court Branch, Agartala for a period of ten years. Balance amount shall be paid to her. Balance amount shall be paid to her. The entire share of minor claimant nos.2 to 5 shall be kept in fixed deposit in their sole name at the same bank and branch for a period till they become major and thereafter for a further period of five years each. 13. No loan or withdrawal shall be permitted from any of the fixed deposits without the permission of the Tribunal Claimant no.1 shall however be at liberty to withdraw the monthly interest from her fixed deposit account of the minor claimants to meet their day to day expenses. To facilitate payment of the balance amount to the claimant no.1 now and the fixed deposit amount on maturity, claimants shall, at the appropriate time, file two photocopies of their Savings Bank Pass Book at the UCO. Bank, District Court Branch, Agartala duly certified by the Banker along with two copies of their passport size photographs for direct transfer of the awarded amount to their bank account. On maturity of the fixed deposit, the amount shall be credited to the savings account of the claimants without further order from the Tribunal.” 10. On the question of liability of the payment, having perused the insurance policy as stated above, this court does not have any amount of doubt that the respondent No.2 in the appeal is entirely liable to pay the amount of compensation as the cross objector is indemnified for the damage, if any including death of any worker. Hence, the respondent No.2, the United India Insurance Company Ltd. shall pay the entire amount in the tribunal within a period of 2 (two) months from the day when their counsel would receive a copy of this order. It is thus obvious that this court is not inclined to remand the matter for fresh inquiry as when the respondent No.2 filed the written statement they even did not indicate regarding unauthorised use of the vehicle. Unless there is averment, no document would be of any utility for projecting an alternative narrative and as such, the said prayer stands rejected. In the result, both the appeal and the cross objection are allowed to the extent as indicated above. Prepare the award accordingly. Send down the LCRs thereafter.