JUDGMENT : I.A. No.1587 of 2020 1. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is delay of 34 days in preferring the appeal and the same may be condoned on the ground as stated in the Interlocutory Application. 2. Having heard, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents and after perusing the reasons mentioned in the interlocutory application, delay of 34 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. I.A. No.1587 of 2020 stands disposed of. M.A. No. 47 of 2018 3. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Appellant-Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred this appeal against the award dated 04.08.2017 in Motor Accident Claims Case No.20 of 2011 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-cum-District & AddI. Sessions Judge-IV, Dumka, whereby the claimants have been granted compensation to the tune of Rs.5,53,000/-along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realization of payment through Demand Draft within 60 days and also given liberty to the Insurance Company i.e., Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. to realize the paid amount from owner of the vehicle as there is violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. has assailed the impugned award on the following grounds :- (i) Income of the deceased has been considered as Rs.4000/-per month without any evidence brought on record. (ii) Deceased was a Khalasi/cleaner of the vehicle, as such, he was not covered under the Insurance Policy. (iii) The deceased was a bachelor, as such, personal and living expenses should be deducted @ 50%. (iv) Amount of Rs.50,000/- paid under the interim compensation has not been deducted from the award granted under Section 166 MV Act. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. has thus submitted that the impugned award may be set aside. 7. Perused the impugned award and heard learned counsel for the appellant. It appears that the Munna Yadav, who was working as Khalasi/cleaner in Truck bearing registration No.JH-10S/4451 in the night of 28.07.2010 at about 2-2:30 A.M. died when the truck met with an accident near Deolok Hotel at Jogia More on G.T. Road within Police Station Barun, District-Aurangabad. 8. Injured-Munna Yadav was brought to Sadar Hospital, Aurangabad, where he died. It appears that the Munna Yadav, who was working as Khalasi/cleaner in Truck bearing registration No.JH-10S/4451 in the night of 28.07.2010 at about 2-2:30 A.M. died when the truck met with an accident near Deolok Hotel at Jogia More on G.T. Road within Police Station Barun, District-Aurangabad. 8. Injured-Munna Yadav was brought to Sadar Hospital, Aurangabad, where he died. Police registered Barun P.S. Case No. 194 of 2010, under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the IPC and after investigation finding the case to be true, submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle namely, Ram Ishwar Yadav. Postmortem report reveals that the Khalasi died because of accident. Deceased was young, energetic laborious and unmarried person, who was working as Khalasi/cleaner in Truck, having monthly income was Rs.4,000/-per month and there was every chance of his greater success in life. 9. As per the records, it appears that the offending vehicle was duly insured before the Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. being policy No.3379/00421326/000/00 valid and effective from 09.03.2010 to 08.03.2011 and the accident took place on 28.07.2010, as such, the offending vehicle was duly insured before the Insurance Company on the alleged date of accident. 10. So far the point assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the income of Rs.4,000/-per month is concerned, the same has been duly accepted by the owner of the offending vehicle. In the case of Chameli Devi vs. Jivrail Mian, as reported in 2019 (4) TAC 724 SC, the Apex Court has considered the income of Carpenter to be Rs.5,000/-per month but here the learned Tribunal has only considered the oral evidence adduced by the owner of the vehicle and has rightly considered income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/-per month. No contrary evidence has been brought on record by the appellant- Insurance Company. 11. So far coverage of deceased under the policy is concerned, owner of the truck has paid the premium with regard to the driver and coolie which is as good as Khalasi of the truck, who normally acts as cleaner of the truck. 12. From perusal of the impugned award, it appears that the owner of the vehicle has filed written statement admitting that the deceased was cleaner/coolie. 12. From perusal of the impugned award, it appears that the owner of the vehicle has filed written statement admitting that the deceased was cleaner/coolie. Both terms Khalasi or coolie have the same meaning in the present context unless something different is brought on record by the appellant-Insurance Company, as such, frivolous ground cannot be allowed at this stage. Apart from that the owner has considered deceased as cleaner or coolie thus deceased was insured under the Insurance Policy and no contrary evidence has been brought on record by the Insurance Company. So far deduction towards personal and individual expenses is concerned, it is true that 1/3rd has been deducted but on the other hand, the future prospect of the deceased has not been considered. Apart from that under the conventional head less amount has been paid. 13. Considering the same, this Court, in absence of any appeal preferred by the claimants is not inclined to enhance the same. Accordingly the quantum of compensation is affirmed without interfering with the same considering the same to be just proper and fair compensation. 14. However, the amount which has already been paid under Section 140 of the MV Act shall be deducted from award given under Section 166 of the MV Act. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal adjusting Rs.50,000/-which has already been paid under Section 140 of the MV Act, as such, the rest amount must be paid within 60 days from today. 15. Accordingly, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby dismissed. 16. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to refund the statutory amount deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of Miscellaneous Appeal, within a period of four weeks from the date of the filling of the requisition/application. I.A. No.2348 of 2020 is hereby closed.