1. Heard Mr. B.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants. Also heard Mr. S.S. Sarma, learned senior counsel representing the respondent No. 3 Insurance Company as well as Mr. A. Acharyya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 04/10/2007 passed by the Court of Learned Additional District & sessions Judge (1st Track Court) No. 2 cum Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup at Guwahati in connection with MACT Case No. 230/2004, seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal on account of death of the husband of the appellant no.1 and father of the appellant no. 2, viz. Late Hemen Sarma.

3. The brief factual background of the case is that the husband of the appellant No. 1 late Hemen Sarma had met with an accident on 04/12/2003 in the National Highway No.31. While he was travelling in a Mahindra Pick-up Van No. AS 01/N-9997, at about 12-30 p.m., a bus coming from the opposite direction and being driven in a rash and negligent manner had met with a collision with the Pick-up Van in which the driver of the vehicle expired on the spot whereas the deceased Hemen Sarma breathed his last on his way to the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), Guwahati. The wife and minor son of the deceased i.e. the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 here-in respectively, had lodged a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs on account of death of Hemen Sarma. It is the case of the appellants/claimants that the deceased Hemen Sarma was a Class-1A contractor by profession having a monthly income of Rs. 20,000/- and he was aged about 43 years at the time of this death.

4. Besides the drivers and owners of the vehicle, the Insurance Companies covering both the vehicles were made parties in the claim petition. The Insurance Companies had contested the case by filing written statement denying and disputing the case of the appellants.

5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for determination:-

“(i) Whether the claim petition is maintainable in its present form?

(ii) Whether on 4.12.2003 at 12:30 P.M. near Piyalikhata on 31 National Highway an accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. AS-01/N-0050 by its driver and in the accident Late Hemen Sarma died?

(iii) Whether Van No., AS-01/L-9997 is also responsible for the accident?

(iv) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation and if so from whom the same is recoverable and to what extent?”

6. During the course of hearing, the claimant side had examined as many as 6 (six) witnesses in support of their case besides exhibiting number of documents in evidence. The opposite parties had cross examined PWs but did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal of the case of the claimants. At the conclusion of the hearing, the learned Tribunal had decided all the issues in favour of the claimants/appellants awarding a total amount of Rs. 3,79,500/- as compensation in the following manner:-

(i)	For total loss of dependency (Rs. 24,000 x 15)	Rs. 3,60,000/-
(ii)	For funeral expenses	Rs. 2,000/-
(iii)	For loss of estate	Rs. 2,500/-
(iv)	For loss of consortium	Rs. 5,000/-
(v)	For love and affection	Rs. 10,000/-
	Total	Rs. 3,79,500/-

7. Being aggrieved by the meager amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal on account of loss of dependency, funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium and for loss of love and affection, the claimants/appellants are before this Court by filing the instant appeal.

8. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that from the testimony of the PW3 and PW4 it is eviden