A. M. SAPRE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by claimants under section 173 of Motor vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') against an award dated 28. 10. 2003, passed by learned Fourth Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case no. 75 of 2001. By impugned award, the claims Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition of claimants and awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,37,000 to the claimants for the death of one Kalu Ram. However, while passing the award in favour of the claimants, the Tribunal exonerated the two insurance companies (non-applicant Nos. 3 and 4) from the liability who were insurer of two vehicles involved in the accident. It is against this award, the claimant has filed this appeal. So, two questions arise for consideration in this appeal. First, whether Claims Tribunal was justified in exonerating both the insurance companies from the liability? And second, whether tribunal was justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 1,37,000 to the claimants and if not, whether any case is made out for enhancement? Facts in brief are these: on 1. 2. 2000, Kalu Ram, aged around 43 years, was sitting in the tanker bearing No. MP 09-KB 1190, when this tanker dashed against another truck coming from opposite direction bearing No. MP 14-G 3161. So far as tanker was concerned, it was insured with non-applicant No. 3 whereas the offending truck was owned by non-applicant No. 1, driven by non-applicant no. 2 and insured with non-applicant No. 4. Due to this dash, Kalu Ram who was sitting in tanker died on the spot giving rise to filing of claim petition by his legal representatives out of which this appeal arises claiming compensation for his death under the provisions of the Act. The non-applicants contested the case of the claimants and denied their liability arising out of the accident. Parties adduced evidence. As observed supra, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition. It is against this award, the claimants have filed this appeal. ( 2 ) HEARD Mr. Sameer Verma and Mrs. Archana Kher, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Milind Phadke, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Mr. S. V. Dandwate, learned counsel for respondent no. 4. Parties adduced evidence. As observed supra, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition. It is against this award, the claimants have filed this appeal. ( 2 ) HEARD Mr. Sameer Verma and Mrs. Archana Kher, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Milind Phadke, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Mr. S. V. Dandwate, learned counsel for respondent no. 4. ( 3 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal in part and in consequence, modify the impugned award in favour of claimants to the extent indicated infra. ( 4 ) WE have gone through the evidence adduced by the parties. In our considered view, so far as the issue regarding liability of insurance companies is concerned, the same has to be answered in favour of the claimants. In other words, Tribunal erred in exonerating the insurance company from the liabilities. This finding is not legally sustainable and hence deserves to be reversed in favour of claimants as indicated infra. ( 5 ) SO far as liability of non-applicant no. 4, i. e. , insurer of the offending truck bearing No. MP 14-G 3161 which dashed the tanker is concerned, the same cannot be rather disputed qua Kalu Ram, i. e. , deceased. It is for the reason that Kalu Ram was sitting in tanker and hence, he was admittedly a third party to the insurer of truck which dashed the tanker resulting in death of Kalu Ram. In these circumstances, the fact, whether Kalu Ram was driving the tanker or was travelling in the tanker as a gratuitous passenger is of no consequence qua insurer of the offending truck. It may be of some significance so far as insurer of tanker is concerned, because no liability could have been fastened upon the insurer of tanker (non-applicant No. 3) as kalu Ram had been held to be a gratuitous passenger of a tanker. As stated supra, this issue is absolutely of no consequence because claimants are entitled to claim compensation from non-applicant No. 4, i. e. , insurer of truck No. MP 14-G 3161, which dashed the tanker, as a third party. As stated supra, this issue is absolutely of no consequence because claimants are entitled to claim compensation from non-applicant No. 4, i. e. , insurer of truck No. MP 14-G 3161, which dashed the tanker, as a third party. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY and in view of foregoing discussion, we reverse the finding of the tribunal on the first issue and hold non-applicant No. 4, i. e. , insurer of truck No. MP 14-G 3161 liable to suffer the award along with its owner and driver, i. e. , non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2. In this view of the matter, the impugned award is modified to this extent in favour of the claimants-appellants thereby making non-applicant no. 4 liable to suffer award jointly and severally against the driver and insured (owner of truck ). ( 7 ) THIS takes us to the next question in regard to quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. As observed supra, claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,37,000 which included a sum of rs. 7,000 towards conventional heads. It has come in evidence that Kalu Ram was driver by profession and is said to be earning Rs. 4,000 per month. We prefer to take rs. 3,000 per month as deceased's salary in place of Rs. 4,000 as being reasonable and proper. In this way, his annual salary comes to Rs. 36,000, deducting 1/3rd, we get Rs. 24,000 for calculating compensation for loss of dependency. Applying the multiplier of 15 because of his age, i. e. , 42 years, we get a figure of Rs. 24,000 x 15 = Rs. 3,60,000. In addition, a sum of rs. 25,000 can be awarded towards all the conventional heads in lump sum as against rs. 7,000 awarded by the Claims Tribunal thereby making a total of Rs. 3,60,000 + rs. 25,000 = Rs. 3,85,000. ( 8 ) IN other words, the claimants are held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 3,85,000 by way of compensation for the death of Kalu ram. ( 9 ) 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. 3,85,000 by way of compensation for the death of Kalu ram. ( 9 ) 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. It is on this basis, the courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation. ( 10 ) 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. ( 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 amount will carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of claim application till realisation. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,500, if certified. Appeal partly allowed. .