B.K. ROY, C.J.— The appellant, widow of Md. Nurul Haque, assails validity of the order dated May 30,2005 passed in Petition No. 3 82/05 filed by the brothers of late Md. Nurul Haque in MAC Case No. 139/2001. 2. Mrs. N.Saikia, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted as follows: (i) The brothers of the appellant's husband not being dependant on him had no right to file Petition No. 382/05, which has been illegally allowed. (ii) To support this submission, she relied on a Division Bench judgment of our High Court in Smt. Mohini Thakuria Vs. Dhiraj Kalita, AIR 1994 Gauhati 22. (iii) The aforementioned petition has been wrongly entertained after disposal of the MAC Case No. 139/2001 on 13.06.2003, which should have been dismissed on the ground of its non-maintainability. 3. In the instant case, we find that the brothers of the deceased were made parties as claimant vide order dated 28.11.2003 passed by the Tribunal. This order is binding on the appellant. 4. Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 reads as under :- "Where death is resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. 5. Apparently, the words expressed by the legislature are “legal representatives” of the deceased and not “dependent” of the deceased. Reliance placed on Mohini Thakuria (supra) appears to be misplaced for the simple reason that was a case of Hindu Family and not Mohammedan family, where brothers are also legal representatives. 6. In terms of the proviso to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, which appears to be a social piece of the victim, the Tribunal the required to pass an order in favour of all the claimants once it is satisfied of the other relevant factors. 7. Mrs. Saikia could not dispute that proposition of the Mohammedan law according to which widow who has no issue will get one-fourth share in the property of her deceased husband and the remaining part will go to the brothers. 8. It is well settled that a Court or Tribunal can rectify its omission on the basis of findings recorded earlier. Thus, we do not see any merit also in the second submission of Mrs. Saikia. 9. In this view of the matter, we do not see any merit in the appeal. Consequently, we dismiss this appeal.