JUDGMENT Claimants are in appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, questioning the legality and validity of the award dated 25.11.2004 passed by the learned Additional Member MACT, Kukshi, district Dhar (M.P.) in Claim case No. 161/04. The only grievance raised in the appeal is about inadequacy of the compensation awarded be the Tribunal for the death of one Jagdish, who died at the age of 28 years and who was engaged in the profession of a skilled worker i.e. meason. In all, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,95,000/-, along with interest payable @ 8% per annum. So the short question arises for consideration in this appeal is whether any case for further enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is made out and, if so, to what extent. Looking to the controversy involved we do not wish to burden our judgment by narrating the entire facts as they are not necessary. The findings with regard to the liability and the manner in which the accident occurred are already held in favour of the claimants. In the absence of any cross appeal or even cross objection filed by any of the respondents namely, owner, driver and the insurer, those findings have attained finality and therefore, they need not be taken note of. It is death case in which one Jagdish met with a vehicle accident on 26.12.2003. He lost his life leaving behind widow, children and aged parents. He was aged about 28 years. As observed supra, he was engaged in the business/profession of skilled worker. He used to do, as it is alleged in the claim petition and was proved by leading evidence the job of flooring. A claim petition was filed claiming compensation payable to the claimants who are the LRs of Jagdish. On contest, the Tribunal, as observed supra, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,95,000/-, as total compensation payable to the claimants. The Tribunal was of the view that the income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000/- per month. Taking this to be the basis, the dependency figure was worked out and applying multiplier of 18 a sum of Rs. 2,95,000/was awarded. On contest, the Tribunal, as observed supra, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,95,000/-, as total compensation payable to the claimants. The Tribunal was of the view that the income of the deceased was Rs. 2,000/- per month. Taking this to be the basis, the dependency figure was worked out and applying multiplier of 18 a sum of Rs. 2,95,000/was awarded. It is this determination made by the Tribunal which is sought to be challenged by the claimants by filing this appeal on the ground inter alia that this award is on lower side and therefore, a case for enhancement is made out. Heard Shri N. Jain and Shri Tamn Kushwah for the appellants and Shri R.J. Pandit, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, we are inclined to allow this appeal in part and enhance the compensation to the extent indicated infra. We have gone through the evidence adduced by the claimants. In our opinion a sum of Rs. 3,000/- would be more reasonable sum which can be taken as basis for determining the monthly income of deceased from his profession. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month cannot be said to be proper figure looking to the evidence. Although, an attempt was made at the instance of the claimants to contend that deceased's income was more than Rs. 5,000/per month etc. but we are not impressed with the submission and therefore, we wish to restrict monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month. Instead of Rs. 2,000/- per month, the compensation is reworked by taking Rs. 3,000/- to be the monthly income of the deceased. In this way, his yearly income to Rs. 36,000/- per annum and after deducting one-third towards personal expenditure of the deceased, we get dependency figure of Rs. 24,000/-. Applying thus a multiplier of 18 we get a figure of Rs. 4,32,000/-. We wish to add a lump sum compensation payable under the statutory conventional heads thereby, making a total sum of Rs. 4,50,000/-. Though learned counsel for the respondent made attempt to urge that impugned award is just and reasonable calling no interference, but in our view, the same is not acceptable to us. 4,32,000/-. We wish to add a lump sum compensation payable under the statutory conventional heads thereby, making a total sum of Rs. 4,50,000/-. Though learned counsel for the respondent made attempt to urge that impugned award is just and reasonable calling no interference, but in our view, the same is not acceptable to us. We have already indicated as to why we are interfering in the impugned award to the extent so as to make it reasonable, adequate and proper. Accordingly, and in view of the aforesaid the claimants are held entitled to get a total sum of Rs. 4,50,000/-. All other findings recorded by the Tribunal are upheld being not under challenge except to the extent which we have modified supra. The enhanced sum shall carry interest @ 4% per annum from the date of application till realization. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid discussion this appeal succeeds and is allowed in part as indicated above. Counsel fee Rs. 1,500/- if certified.