JUDGMENT H. Baruah, J. 1. Judgment and award dated 19.2.2010 passed by the Ld. Member, MACT, Aizawl in MAC Case No. 51 of 2009 is put under challenge in this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. We have heard Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. S.N. Meitei, learned Counsel for the Respondents. 3. The necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of this appeal may be recorded as under:- Deceased Lalnghinglovi was the sister of the claimant, Sh. Lalbiakzuala, Respondent No. 1 herein, while opposite party No. 2, Sh. Lawmliana Tochhawng was the owner of the offending vehicle bearing Regn. No. MZ01/E-2793 (Alto Car). Deceased Lalnghinglovi, during her lifetime was running grocery shop and earned Rs. 7000/-. She was about 61 years of age. On 18.7.2009 the deceased met with an accident involving the vehicle indicated above and succumbed to her injuries. On account of death of Lalnghinglovi, her brother, Lalbiakzuala Respondent herein filed the claim petition before the MACT, Aizawl claiming compensation under Section 166of the MV Act. The claimant impleaded the owner of the vehicle and the insurer of the vehicle as opposite party No. 1 and 2 respectively. 4. The claim was inquired into by the Member MACT. During inquiry the claimant examined himself as witness and in addition he also brought the VCP concerned and his sister unto the witness box to support his claim. The National Insurance Company Ltd., opposite party No. 2, the Appellant herein also examined 1(one) witness. The learned Member MACT taking note of the facts and evidence on record, both oral and documentary passed the impugned judgment and Award, whereby and whereunder Rs. 2,84,500/- was granted as compensation with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization from the Appellant herein. 5. The Appellant being aggrieved thereby filed this instant appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and Award passed by the Ld. Member MACT. 6. The impugned judgment and Award is challenged primarily on 2 (two) grounds: (a) That the claim application is not maintainable, the same being filed by the brother of the deceased, who is not dependant on the income of the deceased and further that all the legal representatives of the deceased are not made party to the claim petition. 6. The impugned judgment and Award is challenged primarily on 2 (two) grounds: (a) That the claim application is not maintainable, the same being filed by the brother of the deceased, who is not dependant on the income of the deceased and further that all the legal representatives of the deceased are not made party to the claim petition. (b) That income of the deceased being not supported by any material cannot be accepted and the award so computed by the Member, MACT therefore, cannot stand in law. 7. Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, the learned Counsel for the Appellant in support of the ground No. 1, contends that there is ample evidence on record to show that the claimant is not dependant upon the income of the deceased since he is living separately from the deceased during the relevant period of time. Therefore, on account of death of his sister, he could not have been benefited from the income he being not the dependant on the income of the deceased. Further, Mrs. Helen Dawngliani submits that though the brother is a legal representative of the deceased in absence of other legal representatives and their impleadment as party to the proceeding, the claim petition cannot be maintained and the same is liable to be dismissed. Mrs. Helen Dawngliani in support of her contention mainly relies in the ratio laid down in the case between United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sapchhawna and another reported in 2006(3) T.A.C. 875 (Gau) and Smt. Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another, reported in 2007(2) T.A.C. 431 (SC). 8. Section 166 of the Act, 1988 provides provision for filing an application for compensation, which speaks as under:- 166. Application for compensation (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident for the nature specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made - (a) By the person who has sustained the injury. (b) By the owner of the property. (c) Where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. (d) By any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. (b) By the owner of the property. (c) Where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. (d) By any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as Respondents to the application. Therefore, an application is maintainable, if the same is filed by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased or by any agent duly authorized by the person injured as the case may be. Here in our case we have found from the facts as well as from the evidence that the claimant is the brother of the deceased. Though admittedly he is living separately there is no evidence to show that the other legal representatives of the deceased authorized in writing the claimant/Respondent herein to file the claim petition for compensation on account of death of the deceased, but from the scrutiny of the evidence on record, more particularly, from the evidence of the claimant as well as his sister, it would appear to this Court that he (the claimant/Respondent) filed the claim petition for himself as well as for the other legal representatives of the deceased. This being the position in the face of the record, argument advanced by Mrs. Helen Dawngliani that the claim petition is not filed for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased cannot be accepted. The claimant/Respondent was verbally authorized by the sisters of the deceased including Thangkhumi (witness No. 3) to file the claim petition on account of death of the deceased in a vehicular accident. Therefore, the first objection raised in this appeal can be set at rest holding that the claimant/Respondent herein was duly authorized by the legal representatives of the deceased to file claim petition. 9. In respect of the second ground so taken by the Appellant in regard to the monthly income of the deceased, Mrs. Therefore, the first objection raised in this appeal can be set at rest holding that the claimant/Respondent herein was duly authorized by the legal representatives of the deceased to file claim petition. 9. In respect of the second ground so taken by the Appellant in regard to the monthly income of the deceased, Mrs. Helen Dawngliani submits that there is no cogent evidence to support that the monthly income of the deceased was at Rs. 7,000/-. There is, however, no denial that the deceased was not doing business of grocery shop during her lifetime. She must have some income there from. The income certificate issued by the VCP (P.W. 2), it is contended by Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, cannot be accepted inasmuch as the same was not issued basing on some materials supplied to the VCP by the claimant and therefore, the same cannot be accepted in view of the ratio laid down in the case between New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kawllian Thanga and another reported in 2007(3) GLT 444. From meticulous perusal of the evidence on record it is nowhere found that VCP issued the certificate basing on some materials. The claimant did never submit any account book of the grocery shop run by the deceased during her lifetime and any other material necessary for the purpose of calculation of the monthly income. Mr. S.N. Meitei, learned Counsel for the Respondent also concedes that no materials were placed before the VCP for issuance of income certificate showing the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,000/- per month. Therefore, evidence is apparent on record that the VCP issued the income certificate on the information supplied to him by the claimant/Respondent herein. The learned Member MACT accepted the income certificate issued by the VCP and taking such income computed the award. 10. Since there is no acceptable evidence in respect of the monthly income of the deceased, the Act, 1988 being the beneficial legislation this Court considers that on this ground the claim should not be refused. Since there is no denial from the Appellant side in regard to the running of the grocery shop by the deceased during her lifetime this Court finds it appropriate to hold the lump sum monthly income at Rs. 5,000/. 11. Death of the deceased is not denied in the vehicular accident that occurred on 18.7.2009 involving the vehicle bearing Regn. Since there is no denial from the Appellant side in regard to the running of the grocery shop by the deceased during her lifetime this Court finds it appropriate to hold the lump sum monthly income at Rs. 5,000/. 11. Death of the deceased is not denied in the vehicular accident that occurred on 18.7.2009 involving the vehicle bearing Regn. No. MZ01/E-2793 insured with the Appellant. Since the deceased died in the vehicular accident as indicated above, on her death, her legal representatives would be entitled to compensation. Evidence being available on record that the claimed petition is filed by the claimant/Respondent for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased including himself the award can be calculated taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/-. The deceased was at the time of her death running 61 years of age. The appropriate multiplier for that age group is 5. Deceased being unmarried claimant would be entitled to 50% of the award so to be calculated taking 5,000/- as monthly income. The award is thus calculated as under: 5000 X 12 X 5 = 1,50,000/- The award so computed shall carry 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization from the Appellant herein. 12. This appeal is partly allowed and modified to the extent as indicated above. 13. Appeal stands disposed of.