JUDGMENT & ORDER : MITALI THAKURIA, J. Heard Mr. P. Hazarika, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and Mr. A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in MAC APP No. 180/2019 and for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in MAC APP No. 10/2019 as well as Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 in MAC APP No. 180/2019 as well as for the respondent No. 6 in MAC APP No. 10/2019. 2. Both the applications filed under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, against the common judgment and award dated 30.07.2018, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Dibrugarh in MACT Case No. 38/2010 and MACT Case No.39/2010. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent/claimants Nos. 1 and 2 as claimants filed an application being MAC Case No. 39/2010 under Section 166 of the MV Act before the Court of learned Member, MACT, Dibrugarh claiming compensation for the death of her husband/father, namely, Indra Kanta Mech in a motor accident. The claimant/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 of the connected MAC App No. 10/2019 also filed an application being MAC Case No. 38/2010 claiming compensation for the death of her son/husband/father, namely, Ramesh Basumatary in a motor accident. 4. On 02.03.2010, the deceased Indra Kanta Mech and 3 others were returning from Demow under Sivasagar District to Duliajan by a Maruti Alto Car bearing Registration No. AS-23/F-2496 and when they reached Jollom under Moranhat Police Station at about 05:30 pm the said car met with an accident with a TATA Winger bearing Registration No.AS-03-AC-0388, which was coming from the opposite direction. In the said accident, the owner/driver of the Maruti Alto Car, namely, Ramesh Basumatary and one occupant, namely, Indra Kanta Mech died. In the said accident the occupant Indra Kanta Mech died on the spot and the owner/driver of the Maruti Alto Car died on his way to Sivasagar Civil Hospital. 5. The owner/driver of the TATA Winger vehicle also lodged an FIR before the Moranhat Police Station, which was accordingly, registered and investigated by Moranhat Police and it was registered under Section 279/337/338/427 IPC. 5. The owner/driver of the TATA Winger vehicle also lodged an FIR before the Moranhat Police Station, which was accordingly, registered and investigated by Moranhat Police and it was registered under Section 279/337/338/427 IPC. However, it is the case of the claimants that due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-03-AC-0388, TATA Winger, is responsible for the accident, as it hit the other vehicle coming from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner. 6. The claimants accordingly impleaded the owner/driver as well as the insurer of the offending vehicle TATA Winger and also impleaded the insurer of the Maruti Alto Vehicle as opposite parties in the said claim petitions. The legal heirs of the deceased owner/driver of the Maruti Car bearing Registration No. AS-23/F-2496 were also arrayed as a proforma opposite parties for the said claim petition. 7. On receipt of the notices all the opposite parties appeared before the Court of learned Member, MACT and the owner/driver of the TATA Winger as well as the insurer of both TATA Winger and Maruti Alto Car also contested their case by filing their Written Statements. 8. The legal heirs of the other deceased Ramesh Basumatary also filed their claim petition which is also registered as MAC Case No. 38/2010 before the learned Member, MACT, Dibrugarh and the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Indra Kanta Mech was registered as MAC Case No. 39/2010 before the same Court at Dibrugarh. 9. After recording the evidences of the witnesses and also the witnesses of CWs as well as 2 DWs, the learned Member MACT had passed the common impugned judgment and award dated 30.07.2018 and awarded the compensation of Rs.44,61,820/- along with interest @ 6% per annum to the claimants of MAC Case No. 39/2010 as well as Rs. 69,89,692/- along with interest @ 6% per annum to the claimants of MAC Case No. 38/2010 and directed the present appellant to satisfy the award to the claimants within a period of sixty days from the date of judgment. 10. On being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said common judgment and award passed by the learned Member, MACT, Dibrugarh, the present appeals have been preferred by the insurance company of TATA Winger Vehicle. 11. It is submitted by Mr. 10. On being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said common judgment and award passed by the learned Member, MACT, Dibrugarh, the present appeals have been preferred by the insurance company of TATA Winger Vehicle. 11. It is submitted by Mr. Hazarika, learned counsel that the present appeals are basically filed on the ground that the learned Tribunal did not consider the vital aspect of the matter of contributory negligence on the part of the driver/owner of the Maruti Alto Car bearing Registration No. AS-23/F-2496, though it was the case of the claimants that there was a head on collision between the two vehicles and the claimants side also did not lodge any Ejahar alleging rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TATA Winger Vehicle, rather, the driver of the TATA Winger vehicle lodged an Ejahar complaining rash and negligent driving of the driver/owner of the Maruti Alto Car, which was responsible for the said accident. 12. Mr. Hazarika, learned counsel further submitted that during the investigation, the Investigating Officer of the case found that the driver of the Maruti Alto Car had drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner causing the alleged accident. The DW 2 Sri Nabakanta Buragohain, the I.O. of the case also exhibited the Final Report of the case wherein it is stated that during investigation, a case under Sections 279/337/338/427 IPC was established against the driver of the Maruti Alto Car, but the Final Report has to be submitted as the driver of the Maruti Alto Car also died in the said accident. Thus from the prima facie investigation conducted by the I.O. it was established that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruti Alto Car. But inspite of the evidence of the DW-2 and the investigation done by him, the learned Member, MACT did not consider the aspect that the accident occurred due to head on collision and there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of both the vehicles and without considering this aspect of the case, the appellant was directed to satisfy the award being the insurer of the TATA Winger vehicle. 13. Mr. 13. Mr. Hazarika, learned counsel further submitted that from the deposition of CW- 3, who was also a co-passenger of the Maruti Alto car at the time of alleged accident, it is seen that he could not say that due to whose fault the accident took place. But the learned Member, MACT, Dibrugarh without considering this aspect of the case made the present appellant solely responsible for the payment/satisfaction of the award. 14. Mr. Hazarika, also submitted that there are other defects also in the judgment passed by the learned Member, MACT wherein the salary certificates exhibited by CW- 4 is accepted without any proper verification though the CW-4 was not authorised by the employer for issuing or exhibiting the salary certificates for the deceased. But the learned Trial Court also did not consider this aspect of the matter and granted compensation to the claimants on the basis of the last salary certificates of the deceased inspite of the fact that the CW-4 had not issued the salary certificates, nor he was authorized to exhibit the said salary certificates. More so, the learned Member, MACT had erroneously assessed the award of compensation on the basis of the said salary certificates with a direction to the present appellant to satisfy the award. Further, the learned Member, MACT also awarded the interest on the future prospect which is not entitled by claimants. In this context also he relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Champabati Ray reported in 2019 0 Supreme (Gau) 896 and emphasized on paragraph 21 of the said judgment, which read as under:- “21. Another ground of challenge to the impugned judgment is that the learned Tribunal had awarded interest on future prospects, which could not be done. In the case of Khusboo Chirania @ Kanta Chirania v. Kamal Kumar Sovasaria , reported in 2018 0 Supreme(Gau) 966 and in the case of Nasima Begum v. Keramat Ali, reported in 2019 0 Supreme(Gau) 507, this Court has stated no interest on future prospects should be given. In the case of Khusboo Chirania @ Kanta Chirania v. Kamal Kumar Sovasaria , reported in 2018 0 Supreme(Gau) 966 and in the case of Nasima Begum v. Keramat Ali, reported in 2019 0 Supreme(Gau) 507, this Court has stated no interest on future prospects should be given. Though no reasons have been enunciated in the above judgments, the reason for the same seems to be due to the fact that future prospects is relatable to an income to be received in the future and as such, there could not be any loss to the claimants for the payment of future prospects, at the time the deceased met with the accident. The reason for awarding interest on the compensation amount, minus the future prospects is due to the fact that though the loss of dependency starts from the date of the accident and the compensation amount is computed on the date of the Award of the Tribunal, interest is awarded to compensate the loss of money value on account of lapse of time, such as time taken for the legal proceedings and for the denial of right to utilize the money when due. However, future prospects is with regard to the probable income to be received in the future and as such there is no requirement to compensate the claimant by way of future interest, for the loss that is to occur in the future, as the future is yet to happen. Further, future prospects is given for the entire future and as such, the claimant is getting compensation in a lumpsum under future prospects prior to the occurrence of future event/s. Thus, with regard to future prospects, this Court is also of the view that there cannot be any interest on future prospects, as the same relates to an income to be given in the future.” 15. Mr. Hazarika, learned counsel accordingly submitted that the award given by the learned Member, MACT in MAC Case No. 39/2010 is accordingly liable to be set aside and quashed and at the same time considering the fact of contributory negligence, the necessary direction may be passed to the owner/insurer of Maruti Alto Car bearing Registration No. AS-23/F-2496 to pay the compensation to the claimants exempting the present appellant from paying the compensation. 16. Mr. 16. Mr. Hazarika, learned counsel also cited the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court to substantiate the plea of contributory negligence as well as for proper assessment of the compensation: (i) Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2018) 5 SCC 656; (ii) Sarla Verma (SMT) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and (iii) Dulcina Fernandes and others Vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and another reported in (2013) 10 SCC 646 17. Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted in this regard that the learned Trial Court had rightly assessed the compensation and had rightly passed the order directing the present appellant to satisfy the award with the observation that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., the TATA Winger vehicle. She further submitted that the respondent No.3 Insurance Company also cannot be made liable to pay any compensation for the death of the driver/owner of the Alto Vehicle and it does not cover the policy condition. She accordingly submitted that there is no need of any interference in the judgment passed by the learned Member, MACT. She cited the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Copan ltd. Vs. Prabha Devi and others reported in (2013) 14 SCC 719 and basically relied on paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said judgment wherein it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Section 147 of the M.V. Act does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said judgment read as under:- "8. Thus, an insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the goods or his authorised representative) carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. Section 147 does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. 9.In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Section 147 does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. 9.In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Sunita Rathi it has been held that the liability of an insurance company is only for the purpose of indemnifying the insured against liabilities incurred towards a third person or in respect of damages to property. Thus, where the insured i.e. an owner of the vehicle has no liability to a third party the insurance company has no liability also.” 18. She further submitted that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the Maruti Alto Car for the said accident, the Insurance Company is also not liable to pay any compensation for the death of the other occupant, namely Indra Kanta Mech. 19. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the offending vehicle was the TATA Winger Vehicle for whose rash and negligent driving the accident occurred. He further submitted that the eye witness or one of the injured who was also examined by the claimants has clearly submitted that the car which they were travelling i.e., the Maruti Alto Car was not in a high speed and it is the TATA Winger vehicle coming from the opposite direction had hit the vehicle for which the accident had occurred. 20. He further submitted that in the present case, the deceased was the passenger rd and 3 party for the other vehicle, i.e., the TATA Winger and hence, as per the policy condition also the present appellant is liable to pay the compensation for the death of the driver of the Maruti Alto Car. 21. He further submitted that CW-4 who was examined as an Accounts Officer of the company and accordingly he exhibited the salary certificate and thus there cannot be any bar to exhibit the salary certificate by the Accounts Officer and accordingly, he exhibited the same. 22. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel further submitted that the investigation report on the basis of which it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is the Maruti Alto car who is responsible for the alleged accident, but he failed to produce the original Final Report and the report which was exhibited by the DW-2 was under objection and the original copy could not be produced by the appellant. More so, as the driver of the Maruti Alto Car had already died, the I.O. could not investigate the case properly and only on the basis of some preliminary report, the Final Report was submitted by the I.O. and hence, that cannot be the sole basis to held that the Maruti Alto car was also responsible for the alleged accident. The two eye witnesses were also examined i.e., CW-2 and CW-3 who categorically adduced their evidence that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the TATA Winger Vehicle. 23. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel accordingly submitted that a reasoned order has been passed by the learned Trial Court and hence, there is no need of any interference in the judgment and award passed by the learned Member, MACT, Diburgarh and the award was also assessed with proper calculation and also considering all aspects of the case. However, he agreed that interest may not be granted for the future prospect. 24. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides and I have also perused the case record, the judgment passed by the learned Member, MACT as well as the evidence on record. 25. There is no dispute in regards to the accident that occurred on the relevant date and it is also not disputed that out of the said road traffic accident two persons died and the claim petitions were filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Indra Kanta Mech and Ramesh Basumatary. Thus, there is no dispute in regards to the accident as well as the death of the deceased, namely, Indra Kant Mech and owner/driver of the Maruti Alto Car, namely Ramesh Basumatary. 26. It is also an admitted fact that said Ramesh Basumatary, who also expired in the said accident, was the owner/driver of the other vehicle, i.e., Maruti Alto Car which was also involved in the said accident. But as per the claimant, the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle TATA Winger which was coming from the opposite direction had hit the other vehicle and for which, the said accident occurred. 27. But as per the claimant, the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle TATA Winger which was coming from the opposite direction had hit the other vehicle and for which, the said accident occurred. 27. The learned counsel for the appellants mainly stressed on the point that there was a head on collision between the two vehicles and the driver of the Maruti Alto Car i.e., the deceased Ramesh Basumatary was responsible for the said accident and for his rash and negligent driving only the accident occurred. The owner/driver of the TATA Winger vehicle also lodged an FIR before the Moranhat Police Station which was accordingly registered and investigated by Moranhat Police. However, the Final Report was submitted in the said case as the owner/driver of the Maruti Alto Car, namely Ramesh Basumatary also died in the said accident. 28. Mr. Hazarika, learned counsel for the appellants basically emphasised on the investigation of the I.O. who also adduced evidence and exhibited the Final Report of the case, wherein, it is stated that during the investigation, a case under Sections 279/337/338/427 IPC was established against the deceased Ramesh Basumatary, but the Final Report had to be submitted only for the death of the owner/driver of the said vehicle. But the I.O. could not produce the original of the Final Report and a photocopy of the said report was exhibited only under objection. More so, there is also no evidence or statement produced by the I.O. while adducing his evidence that on what basis he arrived at a conclusion that the driver/owner of the Maruti Alto Car was responsible for the accident and the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased owner/driver. 29. Thus, without any statements of the witnesses it cannot be held that the Maruti Alto Car was also responsible for the said accident, when there are available evidence on record as discussed above, wherefrom it is seen that the other occupant of the Maruti Alto Car had adduced the evidence claiming that the offending vehicle i.e., the TATA Winger is solely responsible for the alleged accident. To come to a conclusion of contributory negligence there has to be some evidence or statements to prove that the other vehicle was also responsible for the accident and merely the head on collision of the two vehicles, cannot be held that the two vehicles are equally responsible or the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of both the vehicles in absence of any evidence to that effect. In that regard the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors, (2015) 9 SCC 273 have held that there cannot be any automatic inference of contributory negligence by the deceased, only because the accident took place because of the head on collision, in absence of any evidence to that effect. 30. Further, it is rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company, Ms. Mozumdar that the respondent/insurance company cannot be made liable to pay any compensation for the death of the driver/owner of the Maruti Alto Car as it does not cover the policy condition and in that regard she already cited a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Cout, wherein it is also observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Section 147 of the M. V. Act, does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. 31. However, it is seen that the other deceased Indra Kanta Mech was the occupant of the Maruti Alto Vehicle and hence, the submission in regards to policy coverage will not apply for the said deceased. But from the discussion made above, it is seen that no evidence could be adduced/produced by the appellants to substantiate the plea that the Maruti Alto Car was also responsible for contributory negligence for the alleged accident. Thus, unless the contributory negligence on the part of the Maruti Alto Car is established, the respondent M/s National Insurance Company Limited cannot be held liable for payment of compensation or to satisfy 50% of the awarded compensation as claimed by the appellant. 32. Thus, unless the contributory negligence on the part of the Maruti Alto Car is established, the respondent M/s National Insurance Company Limited cannot be held liable for payment of compensation or to satisfy 50% of the awarded compensation as claimed by the appellant. 32. Coming to the issue raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in regards to the salary certificate, it is seen that though CW-4 through whom the salary certificates were exhibited, is not the person who issued the certificates but it cannot be denied that he is the person authorised by the company to exhibit the said salary certificates of the deceased. 33. Further from the judgment it is seen that the learned Member, MACT had assessed the income of both the deceased persons not totally basing on the salary certificates issued by the company, but properly assessed the income after deduction of all the over time allowance, LTC allowance and the amount of leave encashment amount etc. 34. Thus, this Court finds no irregularity in calculating/assessing the compensation. However, it is the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court to which the learned counsel for the claimant also agreed that there should not be any interest on the future prospect which has been assessed by the learned Member, MACT and the interest portion from the future prospect may be deducted accordingly. 35. Considering the discussion above, it is seen that the learned Member, MACT had rightly passed the judgment and award holding that the offending vehicle i.e., the TATA Winger vehicle is solely responsible for the said accident wherein two persons died and the assessment is also made properly by the learned Member, MACT. Further, from the discussion it is seen that due to absence of any evidence or statement, it also cannot be held that Insurance Company for the Maruti Alto Car is also equally liable for the payment of 50% of the awarded compensation for the for the contributory negligence. 36. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment and award dated 30.07.2018, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Dibrugarh in MACT Case No. 39/2010 and MACT Case No. 38/2010 do not suffer from any infirmity. 37. 36. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment and award dated 30.07.2018, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Dibrugarh in MACT Case No. 39/2010 and MACT Case No. 38/2010 do not suffer from any infirmity. 37. However, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides as well as from the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that interest to be accrued upon the future prospect as assessed by the learned Member, MACT may be deducted at the time of satisfying the award. 38. Accordingly, both the MAC APP No. 180/2019 as well as MAC APP No. 10/2019 are hereby stands dismissed. 39. Return the TCRs forthwith.