Heard Mr. S.S. Sarma, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Ms. D.D. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and 2/claimants. None appears on call for the respondent No. 3, although notice was duly served.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the MV Act, 1988, is preferred against the judgment and award dated 02.02.2011, passed by the learned Member, M.A.C. Tribunal, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 2544/2005, awarding compensation of Rs.1,62,000/- together with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

3. The facts of the case is that the respondent No. 3 herein is the owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No. AS-01/V-2561. While riding the said motorcycle from Ganeshguri to Chandmari in Guwahati, the rider, namely, Dhrubajyoti Mahanta, met with an accident. As a result of the accident, he had sustained grievous injury and he had died. Claiming a compensation of Rs.6,75,000/-, i.e. the claimants, respondents No. 1 and 2 herein, who are the parents of the deceased projected that the deceased was 20 years of age and was self employed, having a monthly income of Rs.3,000/-. It was stated that the motorcycle was duly insured with the appellant herein. The appellant appeared in the case and filed their written statement. The respondent No. 3 did not contest the case and proceeded ex-parte against him. On the basis of the pleading, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for adjudication:

(i) Whether the victim Dhrubajyoti Mahanta died in the alleged accident dated 10.10.2005, arising out of the use of motor vehicle No. AS-01/V-2561?

(ii) Whether the present claim petition by the legal representatives of the deceased Dhurubajyoti Mahanta is maintainable?

(iii) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation as claimed for? If so, from whom it may recoverable and to what extent?

4. In support of the claim petition, the respondent No. 2, namely, Smt. Dalimi Mahanta, gave her evidence as PW.1. The following documents were exhibited, viz., Accident Information Report (Ext.1), Post Mortem Report (Ext.2), Income Certificate (Ext.3) and Driving Licence (Ext.4). In defence, the appellant adduced evidence of one Smt. Daisy Goswami, As DW.1, who was then working as an Assistant Manager and posted at Guwahati Divisional Office. The said witness had proved the policy of insurance as Ext.-A. It was the specific statement by the DW.1 in paragraph 6 and 7 of the evidence on affidavit to the effect that as per the policy, the insurer was not liable for the injury received by the person driving the vehicle and as he was not a third party and that the policy issued under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, do not cover the injury of the person due to whose fault the accident occurred. The learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment by holding that as there was no evidence of the deceased had borrowed the vehicle, the case was distinguishable from the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ningamma and another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710. Therefore, relying on the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. H. Lalhmingliana, 2006 (2) GLT 538, held that the respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants was entitled to compensation. Accepting the national income of the deceased as provided in the schedule appended to the M.V. Act, 1988 and after deducting one third on account of personal expenses, the annual dependency was computed at Rs.10,000/- and the compensation was assessed under:

5. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant had relied on the case of Ningamma and anr. (supra) and it i