KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.

1. Heard Mr. R. Sarma, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants. None appears on call for the respondent No. 5 although as per order dated 18.03.2013, notice has been duly served on her on 13.12.2012, as such, the appeal has proceeded ex-parte against the respondent No. 5.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “MV Act”) is preferred against the judgment and award dated 20.02.2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) No. 3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 884/2008, by which compensation of Rs. 6,32,000/- was awarded in favour of the present respondents No. 1 to 4.

3. In brief, the case of the respondents No. 1 to 4, in the claim petition is that they are respectively the wife, children and the father of the deceased Jatin Das, who was the paid driver of the a Maruti Van bearing registration No. AS-01-Y-3601, owned by the respondent No. 5. While driving the said vehicle on 03.02.2008 from Sualkuchi towards Niz Bangshor at about 9.00 a.m. while trying to save a cow, the said vehicle dashed against the wall of a road side shop. As a result of the accident, he suffered grievous injury. He was shifted to MG-30 beded Hospital, Sualkuchi, but on the following date he succumbed to his injuries. Sualkuchi P.S. GDE No. 46 dated 03.02.2008 was registered and subsequently, UD Case No. 4/08 was registered. The respondents No. 1 to 4 by stating that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,200/- per month, a claim for Rs. 6,00,000/- was made. The appellant contested the case by filing written statement. By taking usual pleas, they denied their liability and the respondents No. 1 to 4 were put to strict proof of their claim.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issues for adjudication:

(i) Whether the late Jatin Das had a valid driving license at the time of accident?

(ii) Whether the victim Lt. Jatin Das died on 03.02.2008, due to injuries sustained in a vehicular accident on 03.02.2008, at Barortol, Bangshor under Sualkuchi PS while driving Maruti Van bearing registration No. AS-01Y-3601?

(iii) Whether the victim Lt. Jatin Das was the employee of the Opposite Party No. 2, Mrs. Ambalika Kalita as driver of her vehicle being registered No. AS-01Y-3601 (Maruti Van)?

(iv) Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

5. In order to prove their claim, the respondents No. 1 to 4 had examined two witnesses including the appellant No. 1 (PW-1) and one Mintu Baishya, an eye witness (PW-2). The following documents were exhibited, viz. Accident Information Report (Ext.1), Post Mortem Report (Ext.2) and Driving Licence (Ext.3). No defence witness was examined.

6. On considering the evidence on record, all the issues were taken up together. The learned trial court held that the deceased was 33 years old at the time of his death and by relying on the Schedule given in the MV Act, the applicable multiplier was taken to be 17. Relying on the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kalpana and Others, (2007) 3 SCC 538, the learned trial court had held that the monthly contribution of the deceased towards his family was Rs. 3,000/- per month. Accordingly, on applying the multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency was computed at Rs. 6,12,000/-. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- each was granted as compensation for funeral expenses and loss of consortium. Accordingly, an award of Rs. 6,32,000/- was passed, directing the appellant to pay interest @ 8% from the date of the application i.e. 28.03.2008 till recovery.

7. Challenging the said award, the learned counsel for the appellant had made his submission on four points. Firstly, relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble A