JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J. 1. Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimant-appellant against the judgment and award dated 22.08.2006 as passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sibsagar in MAC Case No. 40 of 2003. 2. The essential fact that is required for appreciation of the challenge as projected in this appeal may briefly be noted: One Tankeswar Kachari while travelling by a scooter through the tri-junction of the N.C.C. road, Demow, connected to the National Highway No. 37 on 04.04.2003 the offending vehicle bearing registration No. AS-04-B-6271 (Maruti Van) coming from behind dashed the scooterist and as a result he sustained grievous and fatal injuries and he was rushed to the Assam Medical College Hospital, Dibrugarh where he was declared dead. On having the report, the Demow P.S Case No. 21 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 242 of 2003 was registered under Sections 279/ 304A IPC against the driver of the Maruti vehicle, the respondent No. 3 herein. The said offending vehicle was insured on the relevant point of time by the respondent No. 1. Both the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed the written statement contesting the claim of the appellant as filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The similar suit was followed by the respondent No. 1. They also by filing a separate written statement contested their liability, as according to them the accident did not occur for rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle as alleged. The Tribunal for arriving at the just decision framed the following issues on the rival pleadings: i) Whether there is cause of action for this claim-application? ii) Whether death of deceased Tankeswar Kachari resulted from an accident arising out of use of the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-04-B-6271? iii) Whether cause of death of the deceased is directly attributable to the rash and negligent act of driving, on part of the driver of the offending vehicle-Opp. Party No. 2? iv) Whether claimant is entitled to get compensation, as claimed? and v) What other relief/reliefs, if any, claimant is entitled to? iii) Whether cause of death of the deceased is directly attributable to the rash and negligent act of driving, on part of the driver of the offending vehicle-Opp. Party No. 2? iv) Whether claimant is entitled to get compensation, as claimed? and v) What other relief/reliefs, if any, claimant is entitled to? The appellant herein adduced as many as three witnesses whereas the respondent No. 1 adduced two witnesses to show that the respondent No. 3 had no valid licence at the relevant point of time when the accident occurred. On the purported appreciation of the evidence both oral and documentary, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that it has been clearly evincing that the accident took place due to the fault of the scooterist. The said finding was returned entirely on the basis of the deposition made by the PW2, namely Tulshi Gogoi, who was admittedly the only eye witness to the accident. The Tribunal appreciated the evidence in the manner as extracted herein: Immediate after the occurrence, driver of the maruti van slowed the speed by application of brake but seeing the situation unfavourable, he fled away. Opp. Party No. 2 - driver of the maruti van could not anticipate that the front scooter rider will abruptly take right-hand turn without any signal, indication etc. as both the vehicles were proceeding by the National Highway in the same direction under considerable speed. It was exclusively the duty and responsibility of the scooter rider to show signal for crossing the road or to wait - allowing the vehicle behind to pass and to cross the road carefully, seeing both sides. From the evidence of PW2 an eye-witness of the accident, it has been made amply clear that the accident took place due to own fault of the scooter rider, not taking sufficient care and caution in crossing the road, and under the facts and circumstances of the case Opp. Party No. 2 cannot be held responsible for the accident-caused. So, this Issue is answered in negative and against the claimant/petitioner. However, while deciding Issue Nos. 4 and 5 the Tribunal preferred not to disturb the payment as was directed to be paid to the appellant under no-fault liability. Party No. 2 cannot be held responsible for the accident-caused. So, this Issue is answered in negative and against the claimant/petitioner. However, while deciding Issue Nos. 4 and 5 the Tribunal preferred not to disturb the payment as was directed to be paid to the appellant under no-fault liability. However, after holding that the scooterist was entirely liable for the said accident the following components of the compensation were also awarded: Thus the total compensation, the Tribunal assessed at Rs.75,000/- including the compensation as made under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, 1988 for no-fault liability. 3. Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant heavily came on the said finding as reproduced by the Tribunal while analyzing the evidence and determining the issue No. 3. Mr. Mahanta insisted this Court to revisit the deposition as recorded by the Tribunal of the PW2 and submits on reference to the said deposition that nowhere that witness stated that without giving any signal or indication the scooterist, the deceased, took a turn on the right side and he was solely responsible for the said accident. On the contrary he submitted that when the scooterist took a turn the maruti van (offending vehicle) dashed him having been driven rashly and negligently. The said witness stated in no uncertain terms that the maruti van was entirely responsible for the said accident. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel further submitted that for sheer non-consideration of this part of the deposition by the Tribunal, the said finding has been rendered perverse and it warrants interference. Apart that, Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the police has enquired the matter on the basis of the complaint lodged by the appellant and on completing the investigation filed the charge sheet against the respondent No. 3 for rash and negligent driving under Section 279 and 204A of the IPC. Therefore, there cannot be any amount of doubt that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruti vehicle by its driver. As sequel to this, this Court finds that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not adduce any evidence, neither the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 did not appear in the tribunal to rebut and to state that the accident occurred for fault of the scooterist. As sequel to this, this Court finds that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not adduce any evidence, neither the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 did not appear in the tribunal to rebut and to state that the accident occurred for fault of the scooterist. Attended by such overwhelming evidence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to hold that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the respondent No. 3, who was in the relevant point of time driving the offending vehicle. Death of the husband of the appellant is entirely attributable to the negligent act of the respondent No. 3. Therefore, the said finding is interfered with and set aside. 4. As corollary to this, the entire assessment has to be redrawn. It appears from the service record as produced before the Tribunal that the date of birth of the deceased was 01.03.1955. The accident occurred on 04.04.2003 and at that time the deceased was aged about 49 years. The deceased used to draw a gross salary of Rs.25,739/-. From the break-ups given in the said service report, it appears that his accountable income was Rs.11,852/-. The annual income, therefore, would be Rs.1,42,224/-. 1/3rd would be deducted therefrom as the personal expenses of the deceased. After deduction the amount comes to Rs.94,816/-. Considering the age of the deceased at 49 the multiplier should be 13' as per the principle as laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma(Smt.) Vrs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Therefore, the said sum is required to be multiplied by multiplier 13' for having the loss of dependency. Thus the amount comes to Rs.12,32,608/-. This amount to be added by the other components, such as, loss of consortium at Rs.10,000/-, funeral expenses at Rs.5000/- and loss of estate at Rs.10,000/-. In the records, no material has been placed for enabling this Court to assess loss of future income. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant any amount on that component. As such, the total compensation comes at Rs.12,57,608/-. The said sum shall carry interest @ 6% p.a from the date of filing of the claim petition till the payment is made. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant any amount on that component. As such, the total compensation comes at Rs.12,57,608/-. The said sum shall carry interest @ 6% p.a from the date of filing of the claim petition till the payment is made. It is made clear that the amount of Rs.50,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal under no fault liability be deducted from the said amount at the time of making payment. Since the respondent No. 1, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is the insurer of the offending vehicle, they shall pay the entire awarded sum within a period of two months from today with interest in the tribunal. For the reasons as aforesaid, the appeal stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. In the fact and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Send down the LCRs forthwith. Appeal allowed.