Judgment ( 1. ) MR. K. K. Koushal, counsel for the respondent No. 2. Heard on counsel for the appellant. Mr. Manoj Jain, merits. ( 2. ) THIS is an appeal filed by claimants under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the claimants against an award dated 28. 2. 2007 passed by Seventeenth motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in the Claim Case No. 72 of 2006. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000 to the claimants for the death of one Shaitanbai, who died in vehicular accident. According to the claimants, i. e. , appellants herein, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, need to be enhanced. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out in the compensation awarded and if so to what extent? ( 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 claimants by learned 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, it is not necessary to burden the judgment by detailing facts on all these issues. ( 4. ) AS observed supra, it is a death case. Break-up of the awarded amount is as under: Towards loss of dependency rs. 50,000 Towards loss of love and affection rs. 8,000 Towards funeral expenses rs. 2,000 ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was mother of the appellants. It is submitted that the date of accident was 6. 12. 2005 and only reason for awarding a meagre amount is that the appellants were not financially dependent on the deceased. Learned counsel submits that for claiming compensation, it is not necessary to prove that one should depend financially. For this contention, reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of chandrashekhar v. Madhya Pradesh State road Transport Corpn. 12. 2005 and only reason for awarding a meagre amount is that the appellants were not financially dependent on the deceased. Learned counsel submits that for claiming compensation, it is not necessary to prove that one should depend financially. For this contention, reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of chandrashekhar v. Madhya Pradesh State road Transport Corpn. , IV (2006) ACC 338, wherein in a case of fatal accident where the deceased was aged 65 years, this court awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 after applying multiplier of 8 with notional income. ( 6. ) MR. Manoj Jain, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that deceased was aged 80 years. She was vegetable vendor and was living with one son only. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances, amount awarded is just and proper. The learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Champabai v. Bajpai Road Lines, 2005 ACJ 65 (MP), wherein no amount was awarded to major sons of deceased who were not dependent upon him. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Manjuri Bera v. Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. , 2007 ACJ 1279 (SC), wherein the claim petition was filed by a married daughter and the matter was arising out of disposal of application under section 140 which was for interim award, honble Supreme Court held that where a legal representative who is not dependent files an application for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to section 140 of the Act. Therefore, even if there is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall not be less than the liability flowing from section 140 of the Act. ( 7. ) AFTER going through the award, it reveals that deceased who was aged 80 years was mother of appellants. Even if it is assumed that at the age of 80 deceased was not doing any work then too, mere presence of older member in the family is carrying value. In our society the status of mother in the family is on a very higher pedestal. When she passed away suddenly that too in a fatal accident, whole family gets disturbed. Since the date of death is 6. 12. 2005, a sum of Rs. In our society the status of mother in the family is on a very higher pedestal. When she passed away suddenly that too in a fatal accident, whole family gets disturbed. Since the date of death is 6. 12. 2005, a sum of Rs. 2,500 can be assessed as her income as she was selling vegetables and also rendering her services for the family as a mother. In view of this, appellants are entitled for the following amount: ( 8. ) THUS, the appellants shall be entitled for a total sum of Rs. 1,20,000 instead of Rs. 60,000. The enhanced amount of rs. 60,000 shall carry interest at the rate of 7. 5 per cent from the date of claim application. With the aforesaid modifications, the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.