ORDER :

KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.

1. Heard Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 and Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1. None appears on call for the respondent No. 6.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred against the judgment and award dated 21.03.2012, passed by the learned Member, M.A.C. Tribunal, Dhubri in MAC Case No. 169/2010. This appeal has been filed for seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. The case in brief is that one Mazibar Rahman, son of the appellant was travelling by vehicle No. AS-16/B-0124 on 11.5.2010. At about 9:00 AM at Dumardaha of NH-31, the said vehicle met with ahead on collusion with another vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01/G/7324. As a result of the accident, the son of the appellant died on spot. In the claim petition, it was projected that the deceased was 22 years of age and having an income of Rs. 9,000/- per month by doing seasonal business. It was projected that the deceased had left behind his blind father, mother and one brother. The accident was registered as Gauripur Rs. Case No. 259/2010 under Section 279/338/304-A IPC. While the vehicle No. AS-16/B-0124 was insured with the respondent No. 5, the other vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The claimant had made a claim of compensation of Rs. 9.00 lakh.

4. The respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3 i.e. the owner and driver of the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling had contested the claim petition by filing their respective written statement The respondents No. 5 and 6, i.e. the insurer both vehicles had also contested the claim petition by filing their respective written statement However, the respondent No. 2 and 4 did not contest the claim petition. The name of respondent No. 3 in this appeal was struck off by order dated 13.09.2019. Upon pleadings, the following 4(four) issues were framed for trial:

(1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. AS-16/B/0124 and AS-01/G-7324 and died due to the accident?

(2) Whether the offending vehicle was duly insured with M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others at the time of accident?

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

(4) Whether the claimant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

5. In support of the claim, the respondent No. 1 examined herself as CW-1 and one Babar Ali was examined as CW-2. The following documents were exhibited, viz., (i) First Information Report (Ext. 1), Certified Copy of ejhar (Ext. 2) and (iii) Certified copy of post mortem report (Ext. 3). The learned Tribunal, in respect of issues No. 1 and 2 held that the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicle had remained unshaken and that on the date of accident, the insurance was valid. In respect of issues No. 3 and 4, the age of the deceased was held to be 22 years. The learned Tribunal by presuming that the deceased was full-grown person, presumed that he would have earn Rs. 100/- per day even by doing labour and accordingly, presuming the working days to be 26 in a month, presumption was drawn that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 2,600/- per month. As the deceased was a bachelor and as his father is alive, 50% of the income of the deceased was taken to be his contribution towards the family. The learned Tribunal by taking the age of the mother as 45 years and by presuming that the father's age to be 52.5 years, held that the average age of parents would be 48.8 years, equivalent to 49 years and by applying the multiplier of 13, computed the compensation at Rs. 2,02,800/-. The appellant was held to be entitled to Rs. 2,000/- as funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- as loss of consortium and Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of estate. Total