1. Heard Mr. B. Haldar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 10/01/2006 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Morigaon in connection with MAC Case No. 18/2004 awarding an amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- as compensation on account of death of the son of the claimant together with interest calculated thereupon with effect from the date of the award till realization at the bank rate prevailing on the date of the award.

2. The son of the claimant, viz. Atabur Rahman was knocked down by the truck bearing No. NLH-8346 belonging to the appellants while he was riding a bicycle and coming from Telahi to Morigaon. The said Atabur Rahman was hit by the truck from behind as a result of which he died on the spot. Accordingly, the claimant had filed a claim petition seeking compensation for an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs claiming that the age of the deceased on the date of death was 18 years and he was having an income of Rs. 5,000/- per month out of his business.

3. The appellants being the joint owners of the vehicle had appeared and filed their written statement denying the claim of the claimant. The appellants had also taken the plea of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and on such basis had denied their liability to pay any compensation to the claimant.

4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-

“(i) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle No. NLH-8346 (Truck)?

(ii) Whether deceased died in the accident as alleged?

(a) If so, whether claimant is entitled to get compensation?

(b) If so, what should be the just compensation considering the loss and suffering of the claimant due to death of the deceased?

(iii) Whether the owner and driver of the vehicle in question are liable to pay compensation?”

5. Eventually on the basis of the evidence available on record and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal had passed the impugned order awarding an amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- being the lump-sum compensation on account of death of the son of the claimant.

6. Mr. Haldar submits that in the instant case, the claimant has failed to adduce any cogent evidence to establish rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and as such there was no scope for the learned Tribunal to award any compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. The learned counsel further submits that there was nothing on record to establish the age of the deceased, inasmuch as, the learned Tribunal had disbelieved the claim of the claimant as regards the age of her deceased son. In such view of the matter, the award of compensation on lump-sum basis is illegal. He submits that due to aforementioned reasons, the impugned judgment and award is not sustainable in law and hence, liable to be set aside.

7. Mr. Dutta, on the other hand submits that a perusal of the materials on record would go to show that there was sufficient ground for the learned Tribunal to hold that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. He further submits that even if the income of the deceased is taken to be Rs. 3,000/- on notional basis, even in such case, the amount of compensation based on the evidence available on record would come to nearly three times of what has been awarded by the learned Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He, therefore, submits that there is no scope for interference with the impugned award in the present appeal.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also meticulously scrutinized the materials on record as well as the impugned award. From the evidence of PW-1 i.e. the claimant, what can be seen that the said witness had clearly deposed in her oral testimony that the age of her deceased son was 18