Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal filed by the claimant under section 173 of the motor Vehicles Act by the claimant against an award dated 16. 12. 2000 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, district Dhar in Claim Case No. 48 of 1999. By impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 5,62,000 with interest to the claimant for the death of one Rameshchandra, who died in vehicular accident. According to claimants, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, need 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 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 claimant by the Claims 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. ( 3. ) AS observed supra, it is a death case. On 12. 3. 1999 Rameshchandra met with an motor accident and died. Parties adduced evidence. Claims Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition filed by the claimants as stated supra, awarded a sum of Rs. 5,62,000. It is this determination which is impugned in this appeal by the claimants contending that it is on lower side and hence it be enhanced. ( 4. ) MR. Sunil Jain, learned counsel for the appellants submit that the deceased rameshchandra was aged 43 years at the time of accident and Assistant Lineman in m. P. State Electricity Board. The learned counsel submits that salary of deceased was Rs. 9,000 per month. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,62,000, break-up of which is as under: Loss of dependency rs. The learned counsel submits that salary of deceased was Rs. 9,000 per month. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,62,000, break-up of which is as under: Loss of dependency rs. 5,52,000 Towards consortium Towards funeral rs. 5,000 expenses rs. 2,000 Towards loss to estate rs. 2,500 ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submit that instead of assessing income at the rate of Rs. 9,000 per month, learned tribunal assessed the income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 6,900 and after deducting 1/3rd amount and after applying multiplier of 10 has assessed the loss of dependency. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal committed error in assessing the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 6,900 per month while the appellants have filed the copy of salary register for the year 1989-99 vide Exh. P1 where the salary of deceased has been mentioned as Rs. 8,239 for the month just before the death and also examined AW 4, gopal Singh Chouhan, who was Assistant Grade-I in M. P. S. E. B. and has stated that the salary of the deceased was as under: ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submits that there was no justification for assessing the income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 6,900 and there was also no justification for applying the multiplier of 10 while as per Second Schedule to Motor vehicles Act, 1988 and looking to the age of the deceased the multiplier of 15 at least ought to have been applied. ( 7. ) MR. R. J. Pandit, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. It is submitted that deceased was in the employment of M. P. S. E. B. and the accident took place when the deceased was on duty. It is submitted that in the circumstances, invariably the payments are being made by employer by depositing the amount with Commissioner, Workmens compensation. It is submitted that the appellant has produced the limited record relating to the salary of deceased and some part of the record has not been called from employer. It is also submitted that record of deductions of income tax, professional tax, etc. has not been produced. It is submitted that the appellant has produced the limited record relating to the salary of deceased and some part of the record has not been called from employer. It is also submitted that record of deductions of income tax, professional tax, etc. has not been produced. It is submitted that multiplier is a guideline so that claimants should get the adequate amount of compensation but in each and every case the multiplier cannot be given effect. It is submitted that so far as deductions of taxes are concerned, reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of A. Lakshmi v. Arjun associated Pvt. Ltd. , 2005 ACJ 704 (AP), wherein High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that deduction of professional tax from gross salary of the deceased while computing compensation is admissible. Further reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta, 2006 ACJ 1058 (SC), wherein in a case of death of boy of 24 years, the multiplier of 12 has been applied while as per Second Schedule to Motor vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied. It is submitted that in this case, the earning of the deceased was Rs. 4,000 per month. Further reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpn. Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya, 2005 ACJ 1441 (SC), wherein in a case where the victim was 38 years and receiving salary of Rs. 56,208 per annum, Honble Apex Court has held that multiplier of 12 is appropriate and not 16. ( 8. ) I have gone through the evidence adduced by the claimants. In my opinion, after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded by learned Tribunal is on lower side. From perusal of the record, it appears that it is not clear that appellant has got any amount from M. P. S. E. B. where the deceased was employed. In my opinion, after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded by learned Tribunal is on lower side. From perusal of the record, it appears that it is not clear that appellant has got any amount from M. P. S. E. B. where the deceased was employed. Since respondents also did not move application for verifying the fact that any amount was deposited by m. P. S. E. B. , therefore, it is directed that the appellants are not entitled for further amount unless appellants submit a certificate from M. P. S. E. B. to the effect that no amount has been paid by M. P. S. E. B. to the appellants on account of death of their employee Rameshchandra Rathore. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, it is on record that a take-home salary of the deceased was Rs. 2,935 just before a month when accident took place. From perusal of the record, it also appears that some loans have been taken by the deceased, therefore, deduction was from salary on higher side. However, it is on record that salary of the deceased was Rs. 6,900 per month, after the deduction. In view of this, the learned tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,900 per month. Looking to the quantum of compensation in the present case, the multiplier of 15 cannot be given effect, however, looking to the age of the children instead of 10 appellants are entitled to get the loss of dependency assessed on the basis of application of multiplier of 12. So far as dependants are concerned, which are including the deceased six in number, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the deceased must be spending 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses, therefore, on account of personal expenses 1/4th amount ought to have been deducted. On account of loss of love and affection also learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount. In view of this, the appellants are entitled for the following amount: ( 9. ) IN other words, the claimants are held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 7,74,700 by way of compensation for the death of rameshchandra. ( 10. On account of loss of love and affection also learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount. In view of this, the appellants are entitled for the following amount: ( 9. ) IN other words, the claimants are held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 7,74,700 by way of compensation for the death of rameshchandra. ( 10. ) 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 static formula is provided for determining 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. ( 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 of Rs. 2,12,700 will carry interest at the rate of 7. 5 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge. No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.