Subhasis Talapatra, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 18.08.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup in MACT Case No. 266 of 2004.

2. The findings as returned by the Tribunal as regards the accident that occurred on 18.07.2003 involving the vehicles bearing registration Nos. AS-01/L-8268 (Bus) and AS-21/1357 (Bus), death of Abul Ali, the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01/L-8268 (Bus) in the said accident and the insurance coverage of the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-21/1357 (Bus) by the appellant, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. are not in dispute by either of the parties or in the appeal. As such, those findings stand affirmed requiring no further appraisal whatsoever.

3. The questions those have been projected in the appeal are related to (1) when there was a head-on collision, the Tribunal by not directing any part of the awarded sum to be paid by the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01/L-8268 (Bus) has committed serious illegality and (2) in absence of any evidence, the Tribunal by considering the age of the deceased at 38 years has departed from the settled state of law.

4. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant seriously questioned the finding of the Tribunal that

From the materials on record it is clearly established that due to fault and rash and negligent driving of the vehicle no. AS-21-1357 (Bus) owned by OP No. 2 and the driver was OP No. 3 who has authorized driving licence and the vehicle was also duly insured with OP No. 1, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. There is also no dispute about the insurance coverage of the vehicle. So, I am constrained to hold mat the insurance Co. is to indemnify the owner. The issue is answered accordingly in favour of the claimants.

He further questioned the finding that:

There is also no proof of age of the deceased. But Ex-2, Death certificate and Ex-3, PM Report which reveals the age of the deceased was 38 years. As such 15' is the appropriate multiplier to be used in this case.

According to Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant those are not the documents for proving the age of the deceased and as such the finding cannot be sustained in law. In support of his contention, Mr. Goswami, learned counsel relied on a decision of the apex Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs. Bidya Dhar Dutta & Ors. as reported in (2006) 3 SCC 242 where it has been held that:

12. Adverting to the next contention of the claimants, no doubt the High Court has not dealt with the point in issue. However, we have noticed the reasoning and finding of MACT recorded under Issue 2. It is the evidence of Rajesh Kumar Gupta PW 2 who was travelling in the Maruti car along with the deceased Raj Kumar Dugar on the day of the accident that he also suffered some injuries in the said accident. He stated that while coming from Digboi, the Maruti car being driven by the deceased met with an accident at a place near Kharjan Pol. Before the accident, Raj Kumar Dugar noticed a passenger bus coming from the opposite direction and the movement of the bus was not normal as it was coming in a zigzag manner. The Maruti car being driven by the deceased Raj Kumar Dugar and the offending bus had a head-on collision. MACT has not accepted the evidence of PW 2 to prove that the driver of the offending bus was driving the vehicle at abnormal speed. If the bus was being driven by the driver abnormally in a zigzag manner, as PW 2 wanted the Court to believe, it was but natural, as a prudent man, for the deceased to have taken due care and precaution to avoid head-on collision when he had already seen the bus coming from the opposite direction from a long distance. It was head-on collision in which both the vehicles wer