A. M. SAPRE, A. K. TIWARI, JJ. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the claimants under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 10. 8. 2004, passed by Second Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in the claim Case No. 366 of 2002. By impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,80,000 with interest to the claimants for the death of one Rajesh, who died in vehicular accident. According to claimants, the compensation awarded is on a 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 Tribunal was justified in exonerating the insurance company from 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 ) AS observed supra it is a death case. On 11. 6. 2002 one Rajesh aged around 24 years a young boy met with a motor accident and died giving rise to filing of claim petition by his parents, i. e. , mother and father seeking compensation for his death out of which this appeal arises. The matter was contested by the respondents. Parties adduced evidence. By impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition. Claims Tribunal by impugned award awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,80,000. It was held that the deceased's monthly income was Rs. 3,000. Deducing '/3rd for personal expenses and applying multiplier of 13 the claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,70,000. In addition to this, a sum of Rs. 10,000 was awarded for consortium. Claims Tribunal by impugned award awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,80,000. It was held that the deceased's monthly income was Rs. 3,000. Deducing '/3rd for personal expenses and applying multiplier of 13 the claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,70,000. In addition to this, a sum of Rs. 10,000 was awarded for consortium. This is how a total sum of Rs. 2,80,000 was awarded. It is this determination which is sought to be impugned in this appeal by the claimants contending that it is on lower side. ( 4 ) HEARD Mr. Sanjay Patwa, the learned counsel for appellants and Mr. R. J. Pandit, learned counsel for insurance company, respondent No. 3. ( 5 ) 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. ( 6 ) WE have gone through the evidence adduced by the parties. In our opinion the tribunal should have relied upon the two salary certificates issued in favour of the claimants, i. e. , Exhs. P19 and P20. These certificates duly coupled with Exhs. P21 to P25 fully support the case of claimants. Secondly, we also noticed that deceased was a promising boy. He was an M. Com. The certificates of his educational qualification are Exhs. P8 to P18. We, therefore, hold that the deceased's monthly income was Rs. 4,000. Deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses, we get a monthly dependency at Rs. 2,667 and yearly at Rs. 2,667 x 12 = rs. 32,004. Applying the multiplier of 15, looking to the age of the deceased, i. e. , 24 years, we get a figure of Rs. 32,004 x 15 = Rs. 4,80,060. In addition, a sum of rs. 10,000 already awarded by the Tribunal, the total compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs. 4,90,060. ( 7 ) 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 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. Indeed in such cases, no fixed and 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, the courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has 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. ( 9 ) 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. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,500, if certified. Appeal partly allowed. .