Judgment N.K.Mody, J. ( 1. ) This is an appeal filed by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 30/09/03, passed by MACT, Indore, in claim case N6.07/02. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.2,64,500/- with interest to the claimants for the death of one Firoj, who died in vehicle accident. According to claimants, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, need to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal. 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 ? ( 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, who is liable for paying compensation etc. It is for the reason that firstly all these findings are recorded in favour of claimants 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, there is no justification to burden the judgment by detailing facts on all these issues. ( 3. ) As observed supra, it is a death case. On 27/01/01, Firoj aged 30 years, met with a motor accident and died, giving rise to filing of claim petition by 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.2,64,500/-, breakup of which is as under :-Rs.2,55,000/- Towards loss of dependency. Rs.9,500/- Towards other heads. ( 4. ) Learned counsel for the appellants submit that deceased Firoj was aged 30 years at the time of accident. Learned counsel submits that income of the deceased was assessed @ Rs.2,500/-, while evidence was adduced by producing certificate Ex.P/10, wherein it is mentioned that the income of the deceased was @ Rs.3,000/- per month. Rs.9,500/- Towards other heads. ( 4. ) Learned counsel for the appellants submit that deceased Firoj was aged 30 years at the time of accident. Learned counsel submits that income of the deceased was assessed @ Rs.2,500/-, while evidence was adduced by producing certificate Ex.P/10, wherein it is mentioned that the income of the deceased was @ Rs.3,000/- per month. Learned counsel submits that multiplier of 17 has wrongly been applied by the learned tribunal as the age of the wife of the deceased was 26 years at the time of the accident. Learned counsel submits that looking to the large family learned tribunal ought to have deduct 1/3rd towards personal expenses instead of 1/2. It is further submitted that on other heads also amount awarded by the learned tribunal is on lower side. ( 5. ) Mr. RS. Surolia, learned counsel for respondent No.3, submits that the certificate of income has rightly been disbelieved by the learned tribunal. Learned counsel submits that income of the deceased assessed @ Rs.2,500/-per month, which is just and proper. It is also submitted that the Honble Apex Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kalpana and Others, Reported in 2007 ACJ 825 , has applied the multiplier of 13 in a case, where deceased was aged 33 years, therefore, it can to be said that learned tribunal committed error in applying the multiplier of 17. ( 6. ) I have gone through the evidence adduced by the claimants. After taking into consideration all the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that in the year 2001 learned tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased @ Rs.2,500/- per month. So far as application of multiplier of 17 is concern the age of the appellant No. 1 was 26 at the time of accident, therefore, as per second schedule of Motor Vehicles Act the multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied. ( 7. ) So far as law laid down in New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Kalpana (Supra) is concern in that case the amount awarded was of Rs.8,16,000/-, therefore, Honble Apex Court has reduced the same by applying the multiplier of 13. Thus the same is distinguishable. So far as the deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenses is concern, it appears that deceased was having wife and minor children, who are appellant nos. Ltd Vs. Kalpana (Supra) is concern in that case the amount awarded was of Rs.8,16,000/-, therefore, Honble Apex Court has reduced the same by applying the multiplier of 13. Thus the same is distinguishable. So far as the deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenses is concern, it appears that deceased was having wife and minor children, who are appellant nos. 1 to 4 and also the parents in the circumstances there was no justification in deducting 1/2 towards personal expenses. The deduction ought to have been 1/4 towards personal expenses. Similarly in other heads also the amount awarded by the learned tribunal is on lower side. In my opinion it will be proper to enhance the compensation. The appellants are entitle for the following amount: ( 8. ) Thus, the appellants are entitle for Rs.4,40,000/-, instead of Rs.2,64,500/-. The enhanced amount of Rs. 1,75,500/-, shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application. The enhanced amount shall be deposited in the name of appellant No. 1 in a nationalized bank, in such a manner so that it can earn monthly interest. The amount can be disbursed for the educational and marital needs of the appellants No. 2 to 4. So far as other findings of the learned tribunal are concern the same shall remain unaltered. ( 9. ) With the aforesaid modification the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Appeal disposed of.