ORDER Sapre, J. -- 1. This is an appeal filed by the claimants who are legal representatives of the deceased under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 26.2.2004, passed by learned 5th Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ratlam in Claim Case No.6 of 2003. By impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.58,676/- with interest to the claimants for the death of one Subhash, who died in vehicle 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? 2. Heard Shri S.L. Gwaliori, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri S.Y. Dandwate, learned counsel for respondent No.3 - Insurance Company. 3. 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, who is liable for paying compensation etc. It is for the reason that firstly all these findings are recorded in favour of claimant by the 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 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. 4. As observed supra, it is a death case. On 29.6.2000, Subhash, aged around 40 years, a Tempo Operator by occupation, met with a Motor Accident and died, giving rise to filing of claim petition by his legal representatives (appellants herein) out of which this appeal arises seeking compensation for his death. The case was contested by the respondents. Parties adduced evidence. The Claims Tribunal by impugned award partly allowed the claim petition filed by claimants and as stated supra, awarded a sum of Rs. 58,676/- by way of total compensation to the claimants. The case was contested by the respondents. Parties adduced evidence. The Claims Tribunal by impugned award partly allowed the claim petition filed by claimants and as stated supra, awarded a sum of Rs. 58,676/- by way of total compensation to the claimants. It was held that since the claimants i.e. widow and children were not dependent upon the earning of deceased and hence, not entitled to claim any compensation (para 17 of impugned award). It was, therefore, held that claimants are not entitled to claim any compensation except a sum of Rs. 58,676/- which they incurred towards medical expenses for the treatment of deceased prior to his death. It is against this determination, the claimants have filed this appeal contending inter alia that compensation awarded to claimants is on lower side and hence, it be enhanced. Likewise, the insurance company (respondent No.3) has filed cross objection (IA No.10795/05) challenging the finding in relation to income determined by the Tribunal in favour of claimants. 5. At the outset, we are constrained to hold that we do not agree to the absurd reasoning recorded by the Tribunal while declining to award any compensation to the claimants on the ground that firstly, they are not dependent on the deceased and secondly, they have their own income. To say the least, the reasoning is perverse. Admittedly, the claimants are none other than the widow and minor children of deceased who died at such young age of 40. Apart from the fact that claimants are the real legal representatives of deceased under the Succession Act, they are equally dependent upon their sole bread earner. Merely, because the wife had some income does not disentitle her to claim reasonable compensation for the death of her husband who died in vehicle accident. We, therefore, upset the finding of Tribunal recorded in para 17 of the impugned award. 6. We have gone through the evidence adduced by the claimants. It is noticed that deceased was an income tax assessee and was submitting his return. Exhibit P-45 is the return for A.Y. 1998-99 in which the deceased's business income in shown as Rs.31,745/-. In our view, it is fair to take Rs.35,000/- by way of business income of deceased on yearly basis. Deducting 1/3rd, we get around Rs.24,000/- for determining the dependency factor. Exhibit P-45 is the return for A.Y. 1998-99 in which the deceased's business income in shown as Rs.31,745/-. In our view, it is fair to take Rs.35,000/- by way of business income of deceased on yearly basis. Deducting 1/3rd, we get around Rs.24,000/- for determining the dependency factor. Applying the multiplier of 15 looking to the age of deceased, we get a sum of Rs. 24,000/- x 15 = Rs.3,60,000/-. In addition, a sum of Rs.25,000/towards all conventional heads as enumerated in Schedule need to be awarded by way of statutory compensation to the claimants. This makes the total of Rs. 3,60,000/- + 25,000/- =3,85,000/-. To this, a sum of Rs.58,676/- already awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses makes the total compensation payable to the claimants at Rs. 3,85,000/- + Rs.58,676/- = Rs. 4,43,676/-. 7. In view of foregoing discussion, we find no substance in the cross objection filed by the respondent No.3, referred supra. It has no merit and hence, deserves to be rejected. Even otherwise, the company has no right to assail the quantum issue either in trial or in appeal unless permission is obtained under section 170 ibid. In any event, in view of our finding recorded supra, the challenge made by the Insurance Company must fail. It is accordingly, rejected. 8. In other words, the claimant is held entitled for a total sum of Rs.4,43,676/- by way of compensation for the death of Sub hash. 9. The compensation awarded to the claimants is a 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, the Courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant 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. 11. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. 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. 11. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. The enhanced sum will carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of application till realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge. Counsel fees Rs. 1,500/- if certified.