Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

1. Heard Mr. AR Agarwala, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. SK Goswami and Mr. A. Acharyya, learned counsels appearing for the respondents No. 2 & 4 respectively. None appears on call for other respondents although notice was duly served. By this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 08.05.2012 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Dhubri in MAC Case No. 234/2006. By the said impugned judgment and award, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,41,500/- with 6% interest to the claimants, who filed the claim petition on the death of the deceased, namely, Gaji Sheikh, who had died on the spot on 24.04.2006, in a motor vehicle accident that had occurred due to collusion between two vehicles. This appeal has been filed for enhancement of the award passed by the learned Tribunal.

2. In the claim petition, it was stated that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus, causing death to the victim herein and two others. The insurers of both the offending vehicles, being respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 4 herein had filed their respective written statement before the learned Tribunal, taking usual plea of denial and had put the appellants-claimants to strict proof of their claim.

3. In support of their claim, the appellants-claimants examined two witnesses. The claimant No. 1 was examined as CW. 1 and one Jasmat Ali was examined as CW. 2. The appellants-claimants exhibited- FIR (Ext. 1), Charge-Sheet (Ext. 2), Seizure List (Ext. 3 to 5) and Post-mortem report (Ext. 6).

4. The learned Tribunal had framed the following issues during trial:-

1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. AS-25/C-0329 and the claimant sustained injuries due to the accident?

2. Whether the offending vehicle was duly insured with M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited at the time of accident?

3. What shall be the just and proper compensation and by whom payable?

5. In respect of issue No. 1, it was held that both the vehicles were responsible for the accident on account of rash and negligent driving and both were held liable for paying compensation in equal proportion and the said issue was decided in the affirmative. The issue No. 2 was also decided in the affirmative. In respect of issue No. 3 (mentioned in the impugned judgment as "issues No. 3 and 4" although issue No. 4 is not found to be framed), by relying on the evidence and pleadings, the age of the deceased was taken as 35 years, as mentioned in the post-mortem report and on failure of the appellants-claimants to produce any documentary evidence regarding professional income, the daily wage of the deceased was taken to be Rs. 100/- per day and the notional income as Rs. 3000/- per month. The deduction of 1/4th of the income was considered towards personal and living expenses and the annual contribution was taken as Rs. 27000/-. Relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the compensation was calculated as under:

27000 X 16 = Rs. 4,32,000/-

Funeral expenses = Rs. 2,000/-

Loss of consortium = Rs. 5,000/-

Loss of estate = Rs. 2,500/-

Total: = Rs. 4,41,500/-

Consequently, the claim petition was allowed by awarding the aforesaid amount in favour of the claimants inclusive of interim relief and the same was directed to be paid by both the insurance companies in equal proportion with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of evidence on affidavit i.e. 09.08.2011.

6. Pressing for the enhancement of the award, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the interest of the award should have been levied from the date of the accident and, if not, from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 29.05.2006. Fu