JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - The owner of the mini-bus (ORS 7436) and his insurer have jointly filed this appeal against the award of compensation by the Tribunal u/s 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short the Act') on the basis of the claims made by the respondents in an application u/s 110-A of the Act. 2. On 25-8-1981 at about 8.00 a.m. Indra Pradhan, father of the claimants-respondents and PW 3, their mother, were proceeding on a rickshaw towards Ainthapali from Sambalpur railway station to the house of their son-in-law. At that time, the mini-bus belonging to the owner-appellant No. 1 caused the accident resulting hi the death of Indra, the husband and fracture of leg of PW 3, his wife. In the claim petition, the two sons claimed compensation of Rs. 80,000/- for death of Indra, their father and Rs. 20,000/- for the injury sustained by their mother, PW 3. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 45,000/- as compensation for the death of Indra and Rs. 17,000/- for the injury on PW 3. 3. Mr. S.S. Basu, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the claim petition by the sons for the injury caused to PW 3, their mother, is not maintainable inasmuch as the injured has not filed the claim petition as required u/s 110-A of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Mr. Basu in this respect has relied upon the unreported decision in M.A. No. 24 of 1984 decided on 17-4-1986 (Orissa State Road Transport Corporation v. Sabitri Satpathy and Ors. In this decision, I have held that the legal representatives of an injured are not entitled to claim compensation for the injury unless they are duly authorised. In that case the injured was not examined. Though procedure being a formality is hallmark of authenticity, the same is a handmaid of justice and is not meant to obstruct the flow of justice. In this case the Tribunal while entertaining the application did not point out to the claimants that the claim by them so far as the injury of their mother is not entertainable without due authority of the mother. The mother who has been examined as PW 3 has not even been suggested that she has not authorised her sons to lay the claim. The Tribunal has directed the compensation to be paid to the mother. The mother who has been examined as PW 3 has not even been suggested that she has not authorised her sons to lay the claim. The Tribunal has directed the compensation to be paid to the mother. Iaterest of justice in the circumstances would be best served if I hold in the peculiar circumstances that the two sons were duly authorised to file the claim petition in respect of the injuries of their mother (P.W. 3). 4. Coming to the dispute relating to quantum of compensation, PW 3 stated that she was earning Rs. 7/- to Rs. 8/- per day before her accident and was not able to earn anything as a result of the injury. PW 2, her son-in-law, who is supposed to have full knowledge of the affairs of the father-in-law's family stated that PW 3 was earning about Rs. 5/- per day. However, there is no clear proof of the same. As in the present occasion, the injured might be remaining absent from the place of her business giving rise to inability to sell vegetables. A guess were is thus permissible. The income of Rs. 5/- per day is a fair estimate and the same would be available for 200 days a year. Thus, the annual income of PW 3 before injury is quantified arts. 1,000/-. 5. The widow has stated in her evidence that at the time of deposition she was aged 56 years. Average longevity of women in India is 65 years. Thus she would have earned Rs. 10,000/- towards income; for the ten years to come, but for the accident. No evidence has been led to show that the circumstances in the area in which she was selling vegetables were such that with a broken leg, she was not able to sell anything. I therefore, I come to the conclusion that the capacity of selling vegetables was not completely lost, but was required. In the absence of any material the total reduction is estimated at Rs. 2,000/-. The net compensation on account of loss of income and justly be determined at Rs. 8,000/-, Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded towards medical expenses. When the Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion and the nature of injury indicates that the determination is not unreasonable, the same is affirmed. Thus, the total compensation payable to the injured PW 3 is determined at Rs. 10,000/-. 8,000/-, Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded towards medical expenses. When the Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion and the nature of injury indicates that the determination is not unreasonable, the same is affirmed. Thus, the total compensation payable to the injured PW 3 is determined at Rs. 10,000/-. There would be no deduction for future uncertainty and benefit or lump sum payment. 6. Determination of the quantum of compensation for deprivation of the contribution of the deceased to the family would depend upon his age at the time of death and annual contribution to the family. PW 1, the son and PW 3, the widow, gave evidence that Indra was contributing some amounts to the family. The income of the deceased was claimed to be Rs. 500/- per month. There ii no evidence whether the claimants, PW 3 and the deceased were remaining in one mess or were separately residing. In the circumstances, a reasonable guess work is to be made. The accident was in the year 1981. The deceased was engaged in a hotel. In such circumstances monthly earning of Rs. 500/- can legitimately be accepted. However, in the absence of any direct proof of contribution to the family, the guess work of 250/- as contribution need not be interfered with. 7. There is controversy regarding the age of the deceased. The postmortem report indicates the age of the deceased to be 45 at the time of death. PW stated in her deposition that her husband Indra was ten years older to her. The deposition indicated her age to be 56 years. PW 1, one of the claimants stated the age of his mother to be 50. Thus, the estimated age in the post-mortem report cannot substitute the move definite evidence of the witnesses like son and widow. In the absence of any written document relating to the age, it is estimated at 60 years at the time of death. 8. The average longevity of an Indian male is 70 years. Thus, the contribution for ten years to the family can be stated to be the pecuniary loss. The annual contribution being Rs. 3,000/- at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month, the loss for ten years would come to Rs. 30,000/-. Thus, the just compensation payable to the claimants including widow PW 3 is determined at Rs. 30,000/-. Thus, the contribution for ten years to the family can be stated to be the pecuniary loss. The annual contribution being Rs. 3,000/- at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month, the loss for ten years would come to Rs. 30,000/-. Thus, the just compensation payable to the claimants including widow PW 3 is determined at Rs. 30,000/-. There will be no deduction on account of future uncertainty and benefit of lump sum payment. 9. In conclusion, PW 3 alone would get a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. The claimants and PW 3 together would get a compensation of Rs. 30,000/-. The compensation payable shall carry interest at 10% from the date of claim till payment. The amount receivable from the fixed deposit of Rs. 15,000/- shall be adjusted. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs.