Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal filed by the claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 6th April, 2004 passed by 1st Member, M. A. C. T. , Indore in claim case No. 301/2003. By impugned award, the tribunal has awarded total sum of Rs. 84. 000/-for the death of one Ramesh. This appeal is filed by claimant 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 H. Thakkar, Advocate for appellant Shri H. G. Shukla, Advocate for respondent No. 3 and Shri V. Baxi, Advocate for respondent No. 5. ( 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. On 20th March, 2001, one Ramesh aged around 57 years, died in vehicular accident along with several others while travelling in offending Tempo bearing number MP-09/s/5344. It is this incident, which gave rise to filing of claim petition by the present appellants (who are his legal representatives) under Section 166 of Motor vehicles Act against the respondents before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation for the death of Ramesh. The respondents contested the claim petition. Parties adduced evidence. It is this incident, which gave rise to filing of claim petition by the present appellants (who are his legal representatives) under Section 166 of Motor vehicles Act against the respondents before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation for the death of Ramesh. The respondents contested the claim petition. Parties adduced evidence. By impugned award passed in several cases arising out of same accident, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants (appellants herein) and passed an award for Rs. 84,000/- towards payment of compensation payable to the claimants together with interest at the rate of 9% for Rameshs death. It is against this award, the claimants have filed this appeal claiming enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. ( 5. ) WE have gone through the evidence adduced by the parties. Having gone through the same, we are of the view that the only area where we can interfere in awarding compensation is the income of deceased and compensation payable under statutory heads. In our view, the Tribunal awarded less compensation under these 2 heads. ( 6. ) THE Tribunal took notional income of rs. 15,000/- earned by deceased for determining the compensation payable to legal representatives of deceased. In our view, it should not have been taken. The evidence tendered by the claimants (partly before Tribunal and partly in this Court as additional piece of evidence) suggests that deceased was engaged in brokerage business (property broker) He was also trade union leader and used to actively participate in union trade activities. Some evidence is also filed to show that deceased had negotiated some property deals and earned money out of those deals. Taking into consideration this type of evidence, one can easily conclude that deceased must be earning atleast a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month if not more from his brokerage business and other trade union activities. Indeed, in a present days scenario, a person engaged in such kind of business can easily earn minimum Rs. 5,000/- per month. We, therefore, restrict this sum of Rs. 5,000/- as his monthly income from all disclosed sources- namely property brokerage/a trade union activist. This makes his yearly income at rs. 5,000 x 12 = Rs. 60,000/ -. Deducting 1/3 towards his personal expenses, we get a total sum of Rs. 60,000 - Rs. 20,000 = rs. 40,000. 5,000/- per month. We, therefore, restrict this sum of Rs. 5,000/- as his monthly income from all disclosed sources- namely property brokerage/a trade union activist. This makes his yearly income at rs. 5,000 x 12 = Rs. 60,000/ -. Deducting 1/3 towards his personal expenses, we get a total sum of Rs. 60,000 - Rs. 20,000 = rs. 40,000. Applying the multiplier of 8 (because of his age 58), we get a sum of rs. 40,000 x 8 = Rs. 3,20,ooo/ -. We consider it proper to award a lump sum amount of rs. 30,000/- towards all statutory heads such as funeral expenses, loss of consortium and estate, thereby making a total of Rs. 3,20,000 + Rs. 30,000 = Rs. 3,50,000/ -. ( 7. ) IN other words, the claimants are held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- by way of compensation for the death of Ramesh. ( 8. ) 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 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. ( 9. ) 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. ( 10. ) 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.