JUDGMENT : P.B. Bajanthri, J. In all these appeals the appellant Insurance Company have questioned the validity of the common judgment dated 16.01.2015 passed in E.C.A. No. 248/2014, 232/2014, and 378/2014 on the file of the III Addl. Sr. Civil Judge & MACT & Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Belagavi. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, respondents including the deceased were working as Labourers in the bore well rigging vehicle bearing reg. no. KA-01-D-9697 belongs to the respondent No.1-P.Chandrashekaran. The said bore well rigging vehicle was driven by one Raja and they were proceeding from Chikkodi to Belagavi. The bore well truck fell down on the eastern side of the bridge and fell in the river and caused accident near Borgalli village on Chikkodi-Belagavi road, due to which, one person died. Their LRs Sri Sahadsai and Smt. Savithri and the other injured persons have filed claim petitions. The MACT proceeded to award compensation to the claimants as follows: 1. E.C.A. No. 248/2014 Rs.8,72,640/- 2. E.C.A. No. 232/2014 Rs.1,54,608/- 3. E.C.A. No. 378/2014 Rs.2,66,488/- M.F.A. No. 101182/2015: 3. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company address arguments in two folds, one is that, undisputedly, the deceased and injured persons were working with the Bore Well Company-Surya Bore Well, whereas the policy in relation to the truck which is involved in the accident stood in the name of one P. Chandrashekharan. Therefore the contract is between the insurance company and Chandrashekharan. Consequently, the persons who are working with the Surya Bore Well Company are not entitled to any claim against the Insurance Company, since policy is covered in the name of P. Chandrashekaran. 4. It was further contended that income of the deceased and other injured persons have been taken at Rs.8,000/- per month, which is on higher side. Hence, the appellant counsel seeks to set aside the M.A.C.T. award or in the alternative, to modify the award while reducing the income of the deceased as well as the injured persons. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that there is no infirmity in the M.A.C.T award. It was contended that in the complaint- Ex.P.2 the complainant has specifically stated that owner of the vehicle is Chandrashekharan P.-respondent No.1. At the same time, there is no dispute that Chandrashekharan. P. is the owner of the Surya Bore Well where the deceased and injured persons were working. It was contended that in the complaint- Ex.P.2 the complainant has specifically stated that owner of the vehicle is Chandrashekharan P.-respondent No.1. At the same time, there is no dispute that Chandrashekharan. P. is the owner of the Surya Bore Well where the deceased and injured persons were working. Consequently, the contention of the appellant to the extent that the policy stands in the name of Chandrashekharan.P and the deceased and injured persons were working with the Bore Well Company has no relationship, cannot be accepted. 6. It was also contended that the author of the complaint has not been examined so as to elicit whether owner of the bore well company is P.Chandrashekharan or not. In other words, the complainant's statement has been accepted/admitted. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that taking income of the deceased and injured persons at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month is reasonable having regard to the date of accident is on 10.08.2011. Therefore, the appellants have not made out a case so as to interfere with the award. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. The two fold arguments of the appellant counsel are that, claimants cannot claim anything against the appellant Insurance Company on the score that the truck stands in the name of P. Chandrashekharan whereas deceased and injured persons were working with the Surya Bore Well Company. The said contention cannot be accepted for the reasons that the Insurance Company have not elicited any material to the extent that owner of the Surya Bore Well Company is other than P. Chandrashekharan-respondent No.1, in whose name the policy stands. On the other hand, complainant has stated, P. Chandrashekharan is owner of the Surya Bore Well Company. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that claimants cannot claim any claim against the Insurance Company, is hereby rejected. 10. The second contention relating to taking income of the deceased and injured persons at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month is on the higher side is concerned, it is to be noted that the date of accident is 10.08.2011. Moreover, the deceased and injured persons undisputedly were working with the Bore Well Company. Even an unskilled labourer in the year 2011, one must be earning a sum of Rs.500/- per day. Moreover, the deceased and injured persons undisputedly were working with the Bore Well Company. Even an unskilled labourer in the year 2011, one must be earning a sum of Rs.500/- per day. Since the deceased and injured persons were working with the Bore Well Rigging Vehicle, at least they must be semi skilled. Having regard to the nature of the job assigned and they were doing it with the Bore Well Company. The MACT has rightly taken income of the deceased and injured persons at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month. Accordingly, the appellant has not made out a case on this score also. Hence, the appeal stand dismissed. M.F.A. No. 101183/2015 and 101184/2015 11. These two appeals were listed along with M.F.A. No. 101182/2015. The liability contention has been dealt in M.F.A. No. 101182/2015 against the Oriental Insurance Company. Therefore, the said contention in these two appeals also stand rejected. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant restricted his arguments relating to quantum of the award passed by the M.A.C.T. in the following manner. a. E.C.A. No. 378/2014 = Rs.8,000 x 60/100 x 25/100 x 211.79=Rs.2,54,148/-. Total compensation Rs.2,66,488/- 11 b. E.C.A. No. 232/2014 = Rs.8,000/-x60/100 x 15/100 x 211.79=Rs.1,52,488/-. Total compensation Rs.1,54,608/- 13. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Doctor assessed the physical disability of the injured persons. At the same time there is non compliance of Sec.4(1)(c) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to the extent of assessment of earning capacity of the injured persons. 14. Having regard to the aforesaid contention, the matter could have been remanded to the Medical Practitioner/Medical Board for reassessment. Instead of remanding the matter to the Medical Practitioner/Medical Board, the matter could be decided with the consent of the parties on the score that the alleged accident took place in the year 2011 and again remanding the matter for the purpose of assessment of earning capacity of the injured person to the medical practitioner would take some more time and further remanding the matter to the MACT and taking a decision. 15. 15. In order to overcome re-exercise of disability assessment read with assessment of earning capacity of the injured persons it is reasonable to modify the MACT award in respect of taking disability in respect of M.F.A. No. 101183/2015 at 20% instead of 25% as taken by the Tribunal and in respect of M.F.A. No. 101184/2015 at 10% instead of 15%. Accordingly, the MACT award is modified with the following calculation. M.F.A. No.101183/2015 = 8,000x60/100x20/100x211.79 = Rs.2.03,318.40 + 12,340/- = Rs.2,15,658.40 M.F.A. No. 101184/2015 = 8,000x60/100x10/100x211.79 = Rs.1,01,659.20 + 2,120/-= Rs.1,03,779.20 16. Accordingly, the following order is passed. ORDER M.F.A. No. 101182/2015 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. M.F.A. No. 101183/2015 and M.F.A. No. 101184/2015 filed by the Insurance Company are allowed in part while modifying the award amount. Amount deposited in this Court along with original records be transmitted to the Tribunal for the purpose of disbursement in accordance with law. Further, if there is any excess amount depositing by the Insurance Company, the same shall be refunded to the Insurance Company in accordance with law. In view of disposal of the appeals on merits, all pending interlocutory applications stand disposed off.