Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. C. Sharma, the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. M. Talukdar, the learned Counsel for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3/Cross Objectors. None appears on call for the respondent No.4 although the notice was deemed to have been duly served and, as such, the appeal was heard ex parte against the said respondent.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 17.03.2009 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 3135/2006, thereby awarding a compensation of Rs.6,02,000/- inclusive of no fault award with interest @ 7% p.a. from 20.12.2006, the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

3. While the insurer had filed this appeal, the claimants, who are arrayed as Respondents No.1, 2 and 3, had filed a cross- objection, which is registered as C.O. No. 12/2004, thereby praying for enhancement of the award.

4. The case in brief is that at about 5.00 p.m. on 23.09.2006, while the deceased was walking from Lakhimandir towards his residence on foot, a motorcycle bearing registration No. AS-01-T-5420, which was owned by the respondent No.4, was driven by one Gobinda Das (Opp. Party No.2 in claim petition) in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased. He was shifted to a private hospital for treatment. However, he succumbed to his injuries on 27.09.2006.

5. The appellant- insurer had filed their written statement and contested the claim by taking up usual pleas of denying their liability and requiring the claimants to prove their case. On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:-

1. Whether victim Bhaba Taran Sarmah, died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the alleged road accident dated 23.09.06 involving vehicle No.AS-01/T- 5420 (Motorcycle) and whether the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle?

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?

6. In order to prove the claim, the respondent No.1, who was the wife of the deceased had examined herself as PW-1. The appellant- insurer did not lead any evidence.

7. In respect of Issue No.1, it was held that the offending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and the issue was decided in favour of the respondents No.1, 2 and 3. In respect of Issue No.2, considering the age of the deceased as 59 years and monthly income to be Rs.12,418/-, deducting one-third of income towards personal living expenses, by applying the multiplier of 8, the compensation was awarded as follows:-

Loss of dependency: Rs.99,344/- X 8: Rs.7,94,752/-

Loss of consortium: Rs. 5,000/-

Funeral expenses: Rs. 2,500/-

Total: Rs.8,02,252/-

Rounded to: Rs.8,02,000/-

8. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had challenged the quantum of the award on the ground that the deceased was 59 years old at the time of his death and therefore, he would have superannuated at the age of 60 years and, as such, if alive, the deceased would have drawn his full salary only for 1 year. Thereafter, he would have drawn pension and therefore, if alive, the deceased would have drawn pension for 5 years, which would have further reduced after 2 years when the deceased would have attained 67 years of age, as such, the pecuniary loss would only be of the pension able income. Thereafter, there would be no computation of loss after one attains 67 years of age because then the multiplier under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would exhaust. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gunamoni Bora, 2008 (3) GLT 733. Based on petition filed under Order XLI Rule 2