1. Heard Mr. R. Goswami learned counsel for the appellant. None appears on call for the respondents although notices on all respondents has been duly served.

2. By this appeal under section 173 of the MV Act, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 13.06.2012 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tinsukia in MAC Case No.91/2009, whereby an award of Rs.4,96,000/- was awarded with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 27.07.2009 till payment.

3. As per the claim petition, the deceased, namely, Ajoy Das was working as supervisor in a construction firm, namely, M/s. Paramount Builders and Suppliers, Gar Ali, Jorhat. He was working at the site of Bogibeel Railway Project, Dibrugarh. While working at site a Tipper vehicle bearing registration No.AS-23-G-1106, owned by respondent No.4, namely, M/s. Satyam Consortium, which was driven by respondent No.5 - Sebastian Taye in a rash and negligent manner, knocked him from the back side, resulting in serious and grievous injuries. He was rushed to the Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh where he was declared dead. It was stated that the deceased was earning a monthly salary of Rs.4,500/- and the respondent No.1, being the mother of the deceased and the respondent No.2 and 3 being the sister and minor brother of the deceased, jointly filed a claim petition on the ground that they were dependants on the income of the deceased.

4. The appellant herein contested the case by filing written statement, denying the claim, and by taking usual pleas, put the respondents/claimants No. 1, 2 and 3 to strict proof of their claim.

5. On the basis of pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-

1. Whether there is a motor accident on 05.04.2009 at 1:30 p.m. at Bogibil Project Construction site under Barbaruah Police Station involving the offending vehicle AS-23/G-1106 (Tipper) hit the deceased causing his death which was driven in rash and negligent manner or not?

2. Whether the Opp. Party Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation as claimed, if so to what extent?

6. In support of the claim, the respondent/claimant No.1 examined herself as CW-1 and exhibited the following documents (1) Accident Information report (Ext.1), (2) Certified copy of post mortem report (Ext.2), (3) Certified copy of FIR and Ejahar (Ext.3), (4) Income Certificate of the deceased (Ext.4), (5) School Certificate of the respondent No.2 (Ext.5), (6) School Certificate of respondent No.3 (Ext.6), (7) School Certificate of the deceased (Ext.7), (8) Attested Caste Certificate of the deceased (Ext.8).

7. The respondents No.1, 2 and 3 (i.e. claimants) had also examined one Dilip Barua as CW-2, who was an eye witness to the accident.

8. On the basis of the materials on record, specifically Ext.1, Ext.2 and Ext.3, the learned Tribunal held that the deceased had died in the accident, as stated, for which Barboruah P.S. Case No.51/2009 was registered and, as such, issue No.1 was decided in the affirmative and in favor of the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. In respect of issue No.2 it was held that the deceased was working as a Supervisor at the work site of M/S Paramount Builders and Suppliers since 25.01.2005 and that as per Ext.4, his monthly salary was Rs.4,500/- with free food. As per the Matriculation Certificate (Ext.7), issued by Board of Secondary Education Assam, his age was below 25 years at the time of his death. Accepting the income of the deceased to be Rs.4,500/-, being a bachelor 50% of this income was deducted towards personal expenses and by applying the multiplier of 18, the compensation was calculated as follows:-

(a).	Loss of dependency : Rs.4,500 X 12 X 18 X 50%	Rs.4,86,000/-
(b).	Funeral Expenses	Rs. 5,000/-
(c).	Loss of Consortium	Rs. 5,000/-
(d).	Total	Rs