A. M. SAPRE, A. K. TIWARI, JJ. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the claimants under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against an award dated 14. 10. 2004, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Shajapur in Claim Case No. 17 of 2004. By impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 14,09,676 with interest to the claimants for the death of one Amarsingh, who died in vehicular accident. According to claimants, the compensation awarded is on the lower side and hence, it needs to be enhanced. It is for claiming enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is, whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence is made out in the compensation awarded and if so to what extent? And secondly, whether Claims Tribunal was justified in exonerating the insurance company from the liability? ( 2 ) IT is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle. It is for the reason that, firstly, all these findings are recorded in favour of claimants by Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimants' favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as owner/driver or the insurance company either by way of cross-appeal or cross-objection. In this view of the matter, we do not wish to burden our judgment by detailing facts on all these issues. ( 3 ) HEARD Mr. Sanjay Patwa, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. V. Dandwate, learned counsel for insurance company, respondent No. 3. ( 4 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal in part to the extent indicated infra. ( 5 ) AS observed supra it is a death case. On 20. 10. 2003 one Dr. Amarsingh aged around 42 years and veterinary doctor by occupation working in government service met with a motor accident and died, giving rise to filing of claim petition by his legal representatives seeking compensation for his death out of which this appeal arises. The matter was contested by respondents. Parties adduced evidence. On 20. 10. 2003 one Dr. Amarsingh aged around 42 years and veterinary doctor by occupation working in government service met with a motor accident and died, giving rise to filing of claim petition by his legal representatives seeking compensation for his death out of which this appeal arises. The matter was contested by respondents. Parties adduced evidence. The Tribunal by impugned award partly allowed the claim petition. By impugned award the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 14,09,676. It was held that deceased was in government service (Veterinary Department) and was earning the monthly salary of Rs. 13,914. Taking a net salary of Rs. 13,319 deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenditure and then applying multiplier of 13, worked out a compensation of Rs. 13,85,176. In addition a total sum of Rs. 24,500 was awarded towards conventional heads. Accordingly and in this view of the matter a total sum of Rs. 14,09,676 was awarded as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. It is this determination which is sought to be impugned in this appeal by the claimants contending, inter alia, that it is on lower side and hence needs to be enhanced. ( 6 ) WE have gone through the evidence. We are satisfied with the compensation so awarded to the claimants insofar as monthly income of deceased is concerned. It is in our view properly determined. We thus uphold the same calling for no interference in the said finding arrived at by the Tribunal which in our view is based on proper appreciation of evidence adduced by the claimants. The only area where we would like to interfere is in regard to applicability of multiplier. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 13. In our view, the Tribunal should have applied multiplier of 15 having regard to the age of deceased, i. e. , 42 years and seven months rather than that of 13. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY and in view of the aforesaid, we hold that deceased's monthly income was Rs. 13,319 and in consequence, the yearly income was Rs. 13,319 x 12 = rs. 1,59,828. Deducting 1/3rd we get a sum of Rs. 1,06,552. Applying a multiplier of 15, we get a figure of Rs. 15,98,280. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY and in view of the aforesaid, we hold that deceased's monthly income was Rs. 13,319 and in consequence, the yearly income was Rs. 13,319 x 12 = rs. 1,59,828. Deducting 1/3rd we get a sum of Rs. 1,06,552. Applying a multiplier of 15, we get a figure of Rs. 15,98,280. So far as award of compensation under the conventional heads is concerned, in our opinion, it is on reasonable side and hence does not call for any enhancement. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed in part. Claimants are held entitled to a total sum of Rs. 16,22,780 as compensation, after adding conventional heads compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. ( 8 ) THE compensation awarded to the claimants is just, reasonable and proper, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these types of cases. Indeed in such cases, no fixed and any static formula is provided for determining the compensation and the same is required to be determined on the basis of evidence adduced and the relevant factors mentioned supra. It is on this basis that the courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants cited some authorities for claiming enhancement. We have gone through these authorities. In our opinion and as observed supra, every case depends upon facts of each case and one can rely upon the cases for awarding compensation. ( 10 ) IN this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. The entire sum will carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge. The cross-objections filed by the insurance company challenging the compensation are dismissed having no substance in the said appeal. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,500, if certified. Appeal partly allowed. .