Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT by Mr. Kamal Tiwari, Advocate. Respondent No. 3 by Mr. Pradeep Gupta, Advocate. Heard on LA. No. 3953 of 2007, which is an application for condonation of delay. Sufficient ground is made out in the application for condonation of delay. Application is allowed. Delay stands condoned. With the consent of the parties matter heard finally. ( 2. ) THIS is an appeal filed by claimant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act against an award dated 9. 1. 2007, passed by learned first Additional M. A. C. T. , shajapur in Claim Case No. 56 of 2006. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 72,000 with interest to the claimants for the death of one Shivpalsingh, who died in vehicular 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 claimants have 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? ( 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 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 the 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. ( 4. ) AS observed supra, it is a death case. On 15. 7. 2006, Shivpalsingh, aged 2 years, 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. 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. 72,000 break-up of which is as under: ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that the amount awarded is on lower side. It is also submitted that appellant No. 2, who is mother of the deceased got herself operated for family planning, therefore, there is no possibility of further child in the family. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that looking to the age of the deceased the amount awarded is just and proper and no further enhancement can be made. ( 7. ) I have gone through the evidence adduced by the claimants. After taking into consideration all the evidence on record it appears that amount awarded is on lower side. After taking into consideration the notional income and after applying multiplier of 15 the amount of loss of dependency ought to have been taken into consideration. Similarly no amount has been awarded on account of loss to estate. The appellants are entitled for the following amounts: ( 8. ) THUS the appellants are held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 1,65,000 by way of compensation for the death of Shivpalsingh. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7. 5 per cent per annum. ( 9. ) WITH the aforesaid modification the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.