M.R. Pathak, J.

1. This MAC Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is against the Judgment & Award dated 15.09.2015 and the corrigendum dated 24.09.2015 passed by the learned Member-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 21/2014.

2. Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Though notices were duly served upon both the respondents, but they did not appear in this case.

3. The brief fact of the case is that on the night of 22.03.2013 around 8:20 pm when the Joseph Lalthlamuana was riding his own bike bearing registration No. MZ-01-E-0927, another vehicle TATA 207 DI Pick-Up Van bearing Registration No. MZ-01-D-9750 hit the deceased at Zarkawt, Aizawl and due to said motor vehicle accident the rider of the bike Joseph Lalthlamuana suffered head injuries and succumb to his injuries on the night of 22.03.2013 itself at the Civil Hospital, Aizawl. At the time of his death, the deceased was 32 years of age. It was stated that though the bike, i.e. the accident vehicle, was bought by the deceased from the respondent no. 1, but the ownership of the bike was not transferred to his name at the time of the said accident.

4. During his life time said Joseph Lalthlamuana, who died in the above noted motor vehicle accident, was working as sales person at G.I. Info Tech. at Zarkawt, Aizawl and the present appellants as claimants on 25.04.2014 preferred an application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl for due compensation as per law and it was registered & numbered as MACT Case No. 21/2014. The appellants claimants no. 1 & 2 are the sisters of the deceased and the appellant claimant no. 3 is the aunt of the deceased with whom the deceased stayed till the time of his death. The offending vehicle (TATA 207 DI Pick-Up Van) bearing Registration No. MZ-01-D-9750 was validly insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. the respondent no. 2 w.e.f 17.12.2012 to 16.12.2013 midnight and the driver of the said offending vehicle had a valid driving licence.

5. The respondent opposite no. 2 contested the said MACT Case No. 21/2014 by filing its written statement stating that the claim petition is not maintainable, there is no cause of action, it was not valued properly, is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party and raised disputes with regard to authenticity of various documents annexed to the petition and accordingly submitted for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. The Tribunal after going through the pleading of the parties framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the claim petition is maintainable in the present form and style submitted by the claimants' appellants.

(ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation claimed and if so, to what extend.

(iii) If the claimants are entitled to the compensation claimed then who is liable to pay the same.

7. During the trial, the claimants/appellants examined two witnesses including the claimant No. 3/appellant No. 1 and the employer of the deceased. But the respondents did not adduce evidence.

8. The appellants/claimants submitted that while passing the impugned Judgment & Award dated 15.09.2015, the MACT had inadvertently taken the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month, although the claimant appellant had clearly submitted and adduced evidence that his income was Rs. 3,200/- per month only and therefore the learned Tribunal amended the said Judgment & Award dated 15.09.2015 by way of a corrigendum dated 24.09.2015 and corrected the amount of the award from Rs. 4,35,000/- to Rs. 4,62,200/- calculating the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs. 3,200/- per month. The appellants/claimants being aggrieved with said judgment and award of the MACT, Aizawl