JUDGMENT H. Baruah, J. 1. On 28th May, 2004, a bus bearing registration No. MZ-01/A-6997 belonging to respondent No. 2 herein, met with an accident in between Aibawk and Tachhip where Zokunga, the conductor was ran over by the said bus while he was under it. The driver of the said offending bus, respondent No. 3 herein, started his bus without giving any instruction to the Conductor of the said bus and had driven, as a result, the Conductor, the deceased, was ran over. The report of the Officer in-Charge, Kulikawn Police Station goes to show that due to carelessness of the driver, the deceased was ran over. The deceased was, however, taken in injured condition to Civil Hospital, Aizawl for treatment but he subsequently succumbed to his injuries on 12th July, 2004. A Death Certificate was accordingly issued. 2. On the death of the deceased, a claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl for grant of compensation by Rev. K. Ramliana. After due enquiry, the learned Member, MACT awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5,48,197/- inclusive of medical expenses during treatment and conventional amount of Rs.10,000/- 3. The appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 15.2.2005 filed this present appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988. 4. We have heard Mr. M.M. Ali, learned Counsel for the appellant, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the insurer of the offending vehicle and also heard Mrs. Helen Dawnliani, learned Counsel for the respondent/claimant Rev. K. Ramliana. 5. Mr. M.M. Ali, learned Counsel for the appellant challenged the judgment and award mainly on two issues: (i) For that the claimant/respondent is not entitled to file a claim petition, claiming compensation on the death of the deceased; and (ii) That the brother of the deceased is not entitled to receive compensation in similar fashion like that of widow, son, and other legal representatives of the deceased. The appropriate multiplier in such a situation would be the age of the claimant who filed the claim petition, when there is no evidence to show the age of the deceased brother on whose behalf the claim petition was filed by respondent No. 1. 6. Mr. M.M. Ali, in support of his contention, more particularly in the context of issue No. 2 relies on a decision of this Hon'ble High Court in the case between United India Insurance Co. 6. Mr. M.M. Ali, in support of his contention, more particularly in the context of issue No. 2 relies on a decision of this Hon'ble High Court in the case between United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sapchhawna and Ors. reported in 2006(3) TAC 875(Gau.). Referring to Paras 10 & 11 of the judgment it is argued by Mr. M.M. Ali that it would be appropriate for this Court to offer some compensation not in the scale that can be offered to the other legal representatives like wife, son, daughter etc. That apart, he also argues that the deceased being unmarried, 2/3 of the income is required to be deducted. Mr. M.M. Ali, however, does not disagree with the entitlement of compensation under Section 140 of the Act. Mr. M.M. Ali, therefore, in view of the facts and evidence appearing in the face of the record submits that the compensation can be awarded to the claimant/brother of the deceased by applying appropriate multiplier with reference to the age of the claimant alone and not with reference to the age of the deceased, or the younger brother of the deceased on whose behalf the claim petition was filed. 7. Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, however, contradicts with the submissions of Mr. M.M. Ali that the appropriate multiplier with reference to the age of the claimant can be applied. While arguing the case, she has stated that the age of the younger brother of the deceased finds place in the evidence of the claimant. When the claim application was file by the claimant on behalf of the younger brother who is wholly dependant upon the income of the deceased, the age of the younger brother can be taken into consideration, an appropriate multiplier can be applied. Since the age of the younger brother of the deceased, as per evidence of the claimant stands at 31, the appropriate multiplier as provided in the second scheduled can be applied while awarding compensation. According to her the appropriate multiplier 16 is taken into consideration in the case of those persons who are in the age group between 35 and 40. The younger brother of the deceased being stood in the age group in between, no error has been committed by the learned Member applying multiplier of 16. According to Mrs. According to her the appropriate multiplier 16 is taken into consideration in the case of those persons who are in the age group between 35 and 40. The younger brother of the deceased being stood in the age group in between, no error has been committed by the learned Member applying multiplier of 16. According to Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, no error or illegality has been committed by the learned Member in awarding compensation. 8. It would be appropriate to say at this stage, though Mr. M.M. Ali, learned Counsel for the appellant initially raises objection by passing issue No. 1 in respect of locus standi of the claimant, subsequently the issue has fallen back in view of the provisions of Section 166 of the Act. Sub-Clause (d) of Sub-section 1 of Section 166 of the Act provides as under: By any agent duly authorized by the person injured or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. Therefore, any agent duly authorized by the injured himself, or by any legal representative of the deceased is entitled to file a claim petition. The legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor accident and need not necessary to be a wife, husband, parents or child. The brother of the initial being assumed the character of legal representative of the deceased would be entitled to receive compensation. So the initial argument advanced by Mr. M.M. Ali appears to be not sustainable in view of the substantive law provided under Section 166 of the Act. Mrs. Helan Dawngliani in support of her contention also relies on a decision in the case between Mrs. Hafizun Begum v. Md. Ikram Haque and Ors. reported in 2007 (4) TAC 1 (SC). Taking aid of the citation, she argues that the younger brother being one of the legal representatives of the deceased, he is entitled to compensation. But in this context, it has to be seen/noticed whether the brother on whose behalf the application was filed is entirely dependant upon the income of the deceased. If evidence is lacking in this matter, the brother will not be entitled to receive compensation in the normal way except the compensation as provided under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. 9. If evidence is lacking in this matter, the brother will not be entitled to receive compensation in the normal way except the compensation as provided under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. 9. After careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, this Court does not find any acceptable evidence that the younger brother on whose behalf this application was made was entirely dependent upon the income of the deceased, the Conductor. That apart, the younger brother on whose behalf respondent No. 1 filed the claim petition was not brought with the witness box before the learned Member in order to assess the situation on dependency. The learned Member assessed the loss of income to the tune of Rs.5,48,197/- inclusive of medical expenses, conventional amount. The learned Member, while assessing the loss of income took the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- p.m. alongwith the multiplier at 16 + 2/3 x 12 which stand at Rs.5,20,000/-. This finding of the learned Member is entirely dependent upon the availability of evidence with regard to dependency. It is argued by Mr. M.M. Ali that the evidence of the claimant respondent No. 1 cannot be taken as true that the younger brother was entirely dependent upon the income of the deceased unless the same statement is whole-heartedly supported by the younger brother himself. This being the position, according to Mr. M.M. Ali, learned Counsel for the appellant, the loss of dependency as calculated by the learned Member is required to be turned down. 10. No argument is put forward in respect of rash and negligence on the part of the respondent No. 3, the driver. The driver has a valid driving license at the relevant point of time. It is also found that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., of which the respondent No. 2 was the owner. The Police report, marked as Exhibit C/11 and C/12 also prove the negligence on the part of the respondent No. 3, the driver. Therefore, it cannot be said that the present claim application under Section 166 of the Act is not maintainable. 11. Having considered all matters in its entirely, this Court is of the view that the entire matter requires a fresh adjudication by the learned Member, MACT. Therefore, it cannot be said that the present claim application under Section 166 of the Act is not maintainable. 11. Having considered all matters in its entirely, this Court is of the view that the entire matter requires a fresh adjudication by the learned Member, MACT. The impugned judgment and award is accordingly set aside and the case is remanded back for a fresh decision with the following direction: That the learned Member, MACT shall afford an opportunity to the claimant to put the younger brother of the deceased on whose behalf the claim application was made into the witness box with liberty to cross examine him by the Opposite Party. This appeal is accordingly disposed of.