JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. S. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A. Z. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company assailing the Judgment and Award dated 31.05.2017, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Dhubri in MAC Case No. 111/2014. 3. The claimant’s case in brief is that on 29.01.2014 at about 02:50 PM, while his wife, Bharati Barman was on her way from her place of work at Ranpagli PHC to her house as pillon rider on a motor cycle bearing registration No. AS-16-A-6802, due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle, she was thrown off the seat of the motor cycle and fell down and later she had succumbed to her injures. 4. The claim proceeded against the owner and the rider of the motor cycle ex-parte. However, the Insurance Company contested the claim by filing written statement. They had taken usual pleas including non compliance of Section 158(6) as the I.O. has not forwarded the documents with regard to the insured to the Insurance Company. It was a further stand that the contract of insurance with the insured being subject to payment of premium, the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the insured shall depend upon validity of such contract. 5. The claimant laid 3 witnesses in support of the claim including the claimant himself as PW-1, one eye witness to the accident, which was PW-2 and another person PW-3 to prove the salary certificate of the deceased wife of the claimant, who was working as an ANM under Halakura Block PHC. The Insurance Company examined one Administrative Officer of the Company as DW-1 and one Junior Assistant of DTO, Dhubri as DW-2. The claimant exhibited 6 (six) documents including F.I.R., Charge-Sheet, Post Mortem Report, Salary Certificate of the deceased, Identity Card of the deceased and HSCL pass certificate for proof of age of the deceased. 6. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal below held that the insurance is liable to pay compensation to the claimant and the compensation was determined to be an amount of Rs. 23,07,192/-with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. 7. 6. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal below held that the insurance is liable to pay compensation to the claimant and the compensation was determined to be an amount of Rs. 23,07,192/-with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. 7. The insurance company has urged that the learned Tribunal below while awarding the claim wrongly determined the income of the deceased inasmuch as the deceased was a contractual employee and not a permanent ANM. It is further contended that there was no evidence on record that the income of the contractual employee will get enhanced and therefore, the learned Tribunal has wrongly calculated the future prospect to be 30%. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly accepted the salary certificate of a contractual worker in equal purulence to the salary certificate of a permanent employee. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal below is deserved to be modified. 8. Per contra, Mr. A. Z. Ahmed, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent No. 1, argues that the learned Tribunal below has not committed any error of law inasmuch as the salary certificate was duly proved and as an ANM, she had always future prospect, whether she works under a contractual job or in a permanent job for the reason of for her qualification and specialisation. 9. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. Also perused the materials available on records including the deposition and the exhibits. 10. Since, the grievance of the appellant relates to the income of the deceased, this Court has perused the salary certificate. Said salary certificate was exhibited as Exhibit-5 by the claimant as PW-1 and PW-3 was brought to the witness box to prove the salary certificate. 11. PW-3 is the Block Accounts Manager of office of the SDM&HO under Halakura PHC, where the deceased wife of the claimant worked. He brought the original salary statement of ANM under Halakura Block PHC for the month of December, 2013 and exhibited the name of the deceased at Sl. No. 15. He proved his signature in the said document as Exhibits-7(1) and 7(2). He further deposed that the salaries were disbursed through Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Halakura Branch. He brought the original salary statement of ANM under Halakura Block PHC for the month of December, 2013 and exhibited the name of the deceased at Sl. No. 15. He proved his signature in the said document as Exhibits-7(1) and 7(2). He further deposed that the salaries were disbursed through Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Halakura Branch. He also proved the document exhibited as Exhibit-8, a letter by which the SDM & HO of Halakura PHC requested the Branch Manager of Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Halakura Branch enclosing therein the staffs’ salary lists as well as account payee cheques. He proved the Exhibit-8(1) as his signature. During cross examination, he deposed that the appointments were made on contractual basis and they did not maintain Acquaintance Roll of contractual ANM. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was not getting monthly salary of Rs.14,300/-. He also deposed that the deceased worked as an ANM from the year, 2011, when he was posted at Halakura PHC. 12. The salary certificate clearly shows that the same has been issued by SDM&HO of Halakura PHC and Block Accounts Manager of NRHM of Halakura PHC certifying that the deceased was working as ANM at Ranpagli Sub Centre under Halakura PHC and was drawing an amount of Rs. 14,300/-as salary per month. The identity card which was also exhibited discloses such status of the deceased wife of the claimant. 13. In view of the aforesaid backdrop, there is no iota of doubt that the deceased was working as an ANM at Ranpagli Sub Centre under Halakura PHC and was drawing an amount of Rs. 14,300/- as salary per month. The Insurance Company has failed to dislodge such evidence. Therefore, the learned Tribunal below has not committed any error of law or fact by holding that the monthly income of the deceased was of Rs. 14,300/-. 14. It was not a issue before the Court whether deceased was a contractual employee or was a permanent employee. What was required to be determined was the monthly income of the deceased, which has duly been determined on the basis of material evidence laid by the claimant. 15. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal below has not committed any error of law or fact while determining the income of the deceased to be Rs.14,300/-. 15. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal below has not committed any error of law or fact while determining the income of the deceased to be Rs.14,300/-. This Court is also of the considered that the learned Tribunal below has not also committed any error while awarding the future prospect to the income of the deceased inasmuch as even if a contractual employee will have a future prospect, when she is a qualified nurse. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that this appeal is devoid of any merit and is deserved to be dismissed for the reason discussed herein above. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 16. Statutory deposit be released in favour of the Insurance Company after proper verification and the compensation awarded be paid to the claimant in terms of the impugned Judgment and Award dated 31.05.2017, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Dhubri in MAC Case No. 111/2014, without further delay, if not paid already. 17. Send back the LCR.