Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal filed by the claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 10th April, 2006 passed by Member, MACT, Indore in claim case no. 247/05. By impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded total sum of Rs. 4,03,500/- for the death of one Varun. This appeal is filed by the claimants for enhancement as according to claimants, the compensation awarded to claimants by the Tribunal is on lower side and it should be enhanced in this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether any case is made out for enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and if so, to what extent and under what head (s)? ( 2. ) HEARD Shri G. K. Neema, Advocate for appellant and Shri S. V. Dandwate and Shri h. G. Shukla, Advocates for respondent No. 2. ( 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 or claimant or who is liable to pay compensation etc. and whether offending vehicle is insured or not? It is forthe reason that firstly, all these findings are recorded infavourof claimants bythe Tribunal and secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimants favour and against the respondents 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, we do not wish to burden our order by detailing facts on all these issues which are not really necessary. ( 4. ) IT is a death case. On 20th June, 2004, deceased Varun aged 19 years, and working as Computer Operator met with a vehicular accident and died. It is this incident which gave rise to filing of claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by legal representatives of deceased claiming compensation for the death of Varun. It was filed against respondents who are insured and insurer of offending vehicle. Parties adduced evidence. By impugned award, the claims Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part. It was held that deceaseds monthly salary was Rs. 6,000/ -. Deducting 2/3rd in place of 1/3rd and applying multiplier of 15, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/ -. It was filed against respondents who are insured and insurer of offending vehicle. Parties adduced evidence. By impugned award, the claims Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part. It was held that deceaseds monthly salary was Rs. 6,000/ -. Deducting 2/3rd in place of 1/3rd and applying multiplier of 15, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/ -. In addition compensation towards statutory heads and damage to vehicle was awarded thereby making a total of Rs. 4,03,500/ -. It is against this award, the claimants have filed this appeal claiming enhancement in the compensation awarded by Tribunal. ( 5. ) WE have gone though the evidence. Having gone through the same and having taken noteofthesubmission urged by learned counsel for the parties, we have formed an opinion that the only area where we can interfere is application of deduction ratio and multiplier. In our view, 1/3rd deduction can be made towards personal expenses of deceased from his yearly earning and 2/3rd be taken for dependency by the Tribunal. There does not appear to be any cogent reason to depart from the normal way of applying 1/3rd and 2/3rd deduction in this case. Similarly, we consider it proper to adopt the multiplier of 16 in place of 15 applied by the Tribunal keeping in view the age of deceased (19 years ). ( 6. ) SO far as monthly and yearly income of deceased is concerned though learned counsel for the Insurance Company made vehement submission and in particular the documents filed by the claimant but we do not find any merit in the same. In the first place, there is no substantial evidence to discard the evidence so adduced by the claimant on the question of income and which found acceptance to the Tribunal in claimants favour. Secondly, the Company cannot in principle challenge the quantum and lastly, it is not an appeal filed by Company but an appeal of claimant. It is for all these reasons, we are not impressed by the submission of learned Counsel for the respondent on the issue of monthly income of the deceased being determined in higher side. This submission of learned Counsel for respondent is rejected. ( 7. ) IN view of foregoing discussion, the monthly income of deceased is taken as rs. 6,000/- as has been held by Tribunal. Deducting 1/3rd, we get a sum of Rs. 4,000/ -. This submission of learned Counsel for respondent is rejected. ( 7. ) IN view of foregoing discussion, the monthly income of deceased is taken as rs. 6,000/- as has been held by Tribunal. Deducting 1/3rd, we get a sum of Rs. 4,000/ -. In this way, the yearly dependency comes to Rs. 4,000 x 12 = Rs. 48,000/ -. Applying the multiplier of 16, we get a sum of rs. 48,000 x 16 = Rs. 7,68,000/ -. In addition a sum of Rs. 8,500/- towards medical, conveyance and funeral expenses, rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation for damage to vehicle are added being already awarded by Tribunal. In this way, the total compensation comes to Rs. 7,68,000 + Rs. 8,500 + Rs. 10,000 + rs. 25,000 = Rs. 8,11,500/ -. ( 8. ) IN other words, the claimants are held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 8,11,500/- by was of compensation for the death of Varun. ( 9. ) 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 case. Indeed in such cases, nofixed and any 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 appellant 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 sum will carry interest at the rate of 6% p. a. from the date of application till realisation. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge. No costs.