O R D E R (per the Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.S.A. Swamy) This L.P.A. is directed against the order dated 3-7-2000 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing C.M.A.No.225 of 1992, which arouse out of an order dated 18-6-1990, passed by the III Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, dismissing the O.P.No.145 of 1987 as against the owner of the vehicle for non-payment of bata. Having regard to a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.No.1794 of 1991 wherein it was held that the owner of the vehicle need not be a party respondent to the proceedings in the appeal, we are of the opinion that the order impugned in this L.A.P. cannot be sustained, and it is accordingly set aside. Since the accident has taken place way back on 10.05.1987 and the claimant being a polio affected girl, instead of remanding the matter to the learned single Judge, we felt it necessary to hear and dispose of the L.A.P, itself on merits. One Medisetty Appayyamma along with others was travelling in a tractor bearing No.APW 8802 on 10.05.1987 and a lorry bearing No.ATV 3227 coming in the opposite direction collided with the tractor, and as a result, several persons, who were travelling in the tractor and trailer died. The appellants herein, who are son and daughter and four other daughters of the deceased woman filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming Rs.50,000/- towards compensation under various heads. The Tribunal held that there is contributory negligence on the part of both the driver of the lorry as well as the driver of the tractor and accordingly apportioned die compensation payable to the legal heirs of the deceased woman. While doing so, the Tribunal confined the payment of compensation to the appellants herein only, and rejected the claim of the other daughters of the deceased woman off the ground that they were married. The Tribunal arrived at the daily income of the deceased woman at Rs.30/- per day, and having deducted half of it towards personal expenses, arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs.450/- per month and by applying the multiplier five worked out the compensation to Rs.27,000/-, and apportioned the same equally between the appellants. The Tribunal arrived at the daily income of the deceased woman at Rs.30/- per day, and having deducted half of it towards personal expenses, arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs.450/- per month and by applying the multiplier five worked out the compensation to Rs.27,000/-, and apportioned the same equally between the appellants. Aggrieved by the above order of the Tribunal, the appellants herein preferred C.M.A. and that was dismissed on the ground that as the appeal against the owner of the vehicle was dismissed, the appeal against the insurer was not maintainable. But as stated supra, a Division Bench, of this Court has taken a view that the owner of the vehicle need not be a party to the appeal proceedings, and therefore, we have set aside the order of the learned single Judge and proceeded to dispose of the L..P.A. on merits. Now the question that requires to be considered by this Court is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and whether there is contributory negligence on the part of both the driver of the tractor .is well as the driver of the lorry, as held by the Tribunal. As far as the second contention is concerned, the learned single Judge in C.M.A.No-225 of 1992 and batch reversed the finding and held that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. We do not see any reason to take a different view from the one taken in the above batch. Corning to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal arrived at the daily income of the deceased who seemed to be an agriculturist and earning a minimum of Rs.30/- per day. We feel that the income arrived at by the Tribunal is not in consonance with the wages prescribed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under the Minimum Wages Act and had the counsel took minimum care in protecting interest of his client and marked the notification issued under the Act. the Tribunal would not have committed this folly likewise if the Judicial Officers tries to keep abreast with the developments that are taking place for ushering in an egalitarian society, they won’t be committing such mistakes. the Tribunal would not have committed this folly likewise if the Judicial Officers tries to keep abreast with the developments that are taking place for ushering in an egalitarian society, they won’t be committing such mistakes. Be that as it may, even if the Tribunal is right in arriving at the income of the deceased, the Tribunal clearly erred in deducting half of her income towards personal expenses, more so of a lady aged 55 years while the general rule is one-third should be deducted towards personal expenses. Hence, if we deduct one third of the earnings, the loss of dependency would work out to Rs.20/- per day and Rs.600/- per month. By applying the multiplier five, the total compensation would work out to Rs.36,000/-. Further, the Tribunal failed to award any compensation towards loss of estate in this case. the second appellant is a minor girl at the time of the death of the mother. She is a polio effected girl. She was deprived of the love and affection and care of the natural mother at a very young age. The father of the girl pre-deceased his wife, the deceased. Hence, we feel it is a fit case to award Rs. 15,000/ - towards loss of estate. Coming to the appointment of the compensation admittedly the son is aged about 30 years and is making a living of his own. Hence, we hold that the son is not entitled for any compensation and the entire compensation has to be paid to the second appellant-girl. Though the compensation payable under our orders worked out to Rs.51,000/-, the compensation is restricted to the amount claimed i.e. only Rs.50,000/-, and the insurance company is directed to pay the said amount of Rs.50,000/- to the second appellant with nine percent interest from the date of petition. --X--