M.R. Pathak, J.

Heard Mr. Lalfakawma for the appellant, Mr. Ashok Kumar Rokhum, learned Additional Advocate General, Mizoram for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

2. Being aggrieved with the Judgment and Award dated 22.09.2015 passed by learned Member-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl, Mizoram in MACT Case No. 6/2014 wherein the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition that was preferred by the present appellant as claimant, has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 challenging the same.

3. The Tribunal came to a finding that the claimant is the brother of the deceased and there is no evidence to show that the claimant depends upon the deceased and there is no any dependency and further the income of the deceased was not proved.

4. It is to be stated herein that on 23.05.2008 around 05:00 p.m. the sister of the claimant/appellant died in a motor vehicular accident when she was dashed by a Fire Tender bearing Registration No. MZ-01-D-6660 belonging to the respondent No. 2 and was driven by the respondent No. 3.

5. After recording of the evidence of the witnesses the Claims Tribunal came to a finding that the claimant is the elder brother of the deceased who was only next to the youngest and that the deceased's youngest brother is still alive. The Tribunal also found that at the time of filing the claim petition the deceased left with three brothers and one sister, including the claimant i.e. the present appellant, whereas the deceased was a single who looked after her old mother. As per the claim made by the Claimant the deceased quit her job and adapted herself in more profitable business and earned Rs. 10,000/- every month. The claimant's witnesses in their evidence clearly deposed that at the time of death of the deceased, her and claimant's mother was alive, who died only in the year 2011. It is also stated that the deceased, mother of the deceased and the claimant along with his wife and six children lived together under the same roof in his house during their lifetime. The claimant's witnesses Nos. 1 and 3 including him in their evidence stated that the deceased was the sole bread earner of her family. The claimant witness No. 2 Sub-Inspector of Police stated that he was the concerned SI at the Champhai Police Station at the relevant time and that in the accident had occurred on 23.05.2008 wherein the sister of the claimant/appellant died on the spot and accordingly a Police Case was registered.

6. After considering all the evidences the Tribunal came to a conclusion that claimant is the elder brother of the deceased who failed to show that he was dependant on the income of the deceased and as such there was no dependency. The Tribunal also came to a finding that it was the deceased, but not the claimant, who was rather dependent upon the claimant. Further, the Tribunal found that the income certificate of the deceased, Exhibit C-5, though was issued by the Village Council President, Bethel Veng, Champhai but he was not examined by the claimant during trial and the Tribunal came to the finding that Village Council President is not the competent authority to issue such income certificate and as such the income of the deceased was not proved.

7. It is seen from the evidences recorded in the case that the claimant appellant filed the claim petition in the first part of February 2014, whereas the alleged sister of the claimant died in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 23.05.2008. Moreover, in his claim petition the claimant though stated deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month by doing business, but, neither he nor the other witnesses, who were examined on behalf of the claimant, did not disclose the business in which the deceased was involved prior to her death. Further, it is also seen that the claimant, the elder brother of the deceased filed the claim petition in the case 201