Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal filed by the claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles act against an award dated 28th July, 2005 passed by learned XI Add. Member, M. A. C. T. , indore in claim case No. 41/03. By impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded total sum of Rs. 1,24,500/- for the death of one Sunita. This appeal is filed by 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 Manish Jain, Advocate and smt. Sudha Shrivastava, Advocate for respondent-Insurance Company. ( 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 for the reason that firstly, all these findings are recorded in favour of claimants by the 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 rather tragic and most unfortunate one. On 16th December, 2002, father, mother and one son while going in vehicle met with a typical type of vehicular accident and died on the spot leaving behind one minor son-Vikram Pratap Singh, aged-14 years as sole surviving member of family. ( 4. ) IT is a death case rather tragic and most unfortunate one. On 16th December, 2002, father, mother and one son while going in vehicle met with a typical type of vehicular accident and died on the spot leaving behind one minor son-Vikram Pratap Singh, aged-14 years as sole surviving member of family. It is this tragic incident which took the lives of 3 members of one family i. e. father, mother and one son (brother of claimant No. 1), gave rise to filing of 3 claim petitions by the same claimants (appellants herein) i. e. sole surviving minor son - Vikram Singh through his grand father (father of deceased) claiming compensation for loss of 3 of his family members i. e. his father, mother and one brother. In all the three claim petitions, as mentioned supra were filed by the same (one) the claimant against same opposite parties i. e. driver, owner and insurer of offending vehicle, which was involved in the accident and due to which 3 persons died. The respondents contested the case. Parties adduced common evidence because all the three claim petitions were clubbed together for their disposal. By common impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed all the three claim petitions filed by claimants (appellants herein) and accordingly awarded compensation as follows: (1) Claim No. 41/03 For the death of mother Rs. 1,24,500/ -. (2) Claim No. 42/03 For the death of father Rs. 12,15,400/ -. (3) Claim No. 43/03 For the death of brother Rs. 57,000/ -. ( 5. ) SO far as this appeal is concerned, it arises out of a claim case No. 41/03 i. e. claim in relation to the death of mother of claimant. According to claimant, the compensation awarded by Tribunal in the case of his deceased mother-Sunita is on lower side i. e. Rs. 1,24,500/- and hence it deserves to be enhanced in this appeal. So this appeal is filed confining to the claim arising out of the case of mother. So far as claim of other 2 i. e. father and brother are concerned, the same is not under challenge. It is accepted by the claimants being reasonable and proper. In this view of the matter, we are not called upon to examine the correctness of 2 other claim cases relating to father and brother decided by impugned awarded in this appeal. ( 6. It is accepted by the claimants being reasonable and proper. In this view of the matter, we are not called upon to examine the correctness of 2 other claim cases relating to father and brother decided by impugned awarded in this appeal. ( 6. ) SO the only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether tribunal was justified in award a total compensation of Rs. 1,24,500/-to claimant for the death of his mother-Sunita and if not whether any case for enhancement is made out and if so, to what extent? ( 7. ) WE have gone through the evidence adduced by the claimant on the question of deceaseds income which she used to earn. Having gone through the same, we are of the view that a case for interference in deceaseds income is made out Thetribunal on evidence held that deceaseds yearly income is rs. 30,000/- and accordingly deducted 3/4th for calculating dependency for determining the compensation payable to claimants. In our view, it was not proper as is clear from documentary evidence adduced by the claimant for proving the income of deceased sunita. It is not in dispute that deceased-Sunita, aged around 40 years was an Income tax Assessee. She had disclosed her yearly income from all her known sources in her return. She was scientist and used to teach. She also used to do tuition. Ext. P-81 is the copy of her Income Tax return for the assessment Year 2000-2001. In this return, she had disclosed her yearly income at rs. 52,500/ -. We consider it proper to take rs. 50,000/- as her yearly income on safer side. Indeed, there appears no justifiable reason to reduce heryearly income from less than Rs. 50,000/-because the same is disclosed by the deceased herself in her income Tax return. Deducting 1/3rd in place of 2/3rd we get a sum of Rs. 33,000/- for calculating dependency. Applying the multiplier of 15, we get a sum of Rs. 5,95,000/ -. In addition, we award a sum of Rs. 25,000/-towards other statutory head such as funeral expenses, loss of estate, love and affection etc. thereby making a total of Rs. 6,20,000/ -. ( 8. ) IN other words, the claimants are held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 6,20,000/- by way of compensation for the death of Sunita. ( 9. In addition, we award a sum of Rs. 25,000/-towards other statutory head such as funeral expenses, loss of estate, love and affection etc. thereby making a total of Rs. 6,20,000/ -. ( 8. ) IN other words, the claimants are held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 6,20,000/- by way of compensation for the death of Sunita. ( 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, no fixed 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.