1. Heard Mr. S. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

2. This appeal by the claimant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the judgment and award dated 03.05.2013 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Guwahati in MAC Case No.1881/10. This appeal is for enhancement of the award.

3. The brief facts as stated in the claim petition is that on 11.03.2010 predecessor of the appellants, namely Late Binod Shyam was travelling from Sibsagar to Jorhat on 11.03.2010 in the Indigo car owned by his wife i.e. the appellant No.1 herein. He was accompanied by the appellants No.1, 2 and 3. When the car arrived near Charing Kakuri, all of a sudden the truck bearing registration No.AS-01/C-8029 coming from the opposite direction collided with the vehicle of the deceased. As a result of the accident, he had sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to his injuries on the same day. The driver of the offending truck did not contest the case. The respondents No.1 and 2 had filed their written statement and denied their liability. The following issues were framed for trial:-

1. Whether victim, Late Binod Shyam, died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the alleged road accident dated 11.03.10 at Charing Kakuri under Gaurisagar Police Station, involving vehicle No.AS-01/C-8029 and AS-03/G-6206 and whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicles?

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to receive any compensation and if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount will be payable?

4. The appellant No.1 was examined as PW-1. The UD Assistant of the Office of the Deputy Director, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Diphu was examined as PW-2 to prove the income of the deceased. The following documents are exhibited by the appellant:-(1) Accident Information Report (Ext-1), (2) Post Mortem Report (Ext2), (3) Certified Copy of the FIR (Ext-3), (4) Certified Copy of the Charge-sheet (Ext-4).

5. In respect of issue No.1, the learned Tribunal relied on the FIR where it was stated that the accident was a head-on-collusion. The learned Tribunal by referring to the time of the accident, being 3:15 p.m., held that no intervening factor was brought on record, as such, it was held that the accident took place due to contributory negligence of the driver of both the vehicles. Therefore, as it was held that there was a head-on-collusion on a broad day light, the learned Tribunal held that it really established that there was contributory negligence of the deceased to the extent of 50%. Relying on the Salary statement (Ext.-7), it was held in respect of issue No.2 that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.22,148/-and a sum of Rs.208/-was liable to be deducted for professional tax, as such, his salary was taken to be Rs.21,940/-. By applying the multiplier of 13 as the deceased was below 50 years, a sum of 30% enhancement was made towards future prospects and, as such the salary together with addition of 30% of future prospects, the monthly income was taken to be as Rs.28,500/-and after deduction of ¼th of his income towards personal expenses, the annual dependency was computed at Rs.2,56,500/-and the assessment of compensation was done as under:-

Loss of dependency 256500 X 13	=Rs.33,34,500/-
Funeral expenses	=Rs.5000/-
Loss of consortium	=Rs.10,000/-
Loss of estate	=Rs.5000/-
Total	=Rs.33,54,500/-

(Rupees Thirty three lakh fifty four thousand and five hundred only).

6. The respondent No.1, being the insurer of the truck was held liable to pay compensation to the extent of 50% and issue No.2 was decided accordingly. The said amount was awarded with the interest of 6% per annum.

7. On the basis of the submissions by