Judgment A.M. SAPRE, J. ( 1. ) The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of other three connected appeals being M. A. No.631 of 2006, M.A. No.669 of 2006 and M.A. No.692 2006, because all the four appeals arise out of one impugned award and secondly, relate to same accident. ( 2. ) This is an appeal filed by Insurance Company under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 18.10.2005, passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhabua in Claim Case No. 122 of 2001. The other 3 appeals referred supra are also filed by the same Insurance Company against the same award though arise in 3 different claim cases filed by claimants. By impugned award, the Tribunal has partly allowed all the four claim petitions and has accordingly, awarded compensation to every claimant for the death of persons named therein in vehicular accident. ( 3. ) So far as present appeal (M.A. No.632 of 2006) is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation o Rs.5,41,000/- to claimants (respondents) for the death of one Parma. The respondents / claimants have filed cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P. Code against the impugned finding seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded by Tribunal. ( 4. ) Facts of the case so far as M.A. No.632 of 2006 and the manner in which accident occurred are these. ( 5. ) On 26.02.2001, four persons by name - Tihia, Ter Singh, Parma and Par Singh were going on two bicycles on public Road from Megh Nagar to one village called Mor Dungra in Jhabua District when one Mini Truck bearing No.GJ-20-T- 3018 driven by respondent no.2, owned by respondent no. 1 and Insured with the present appellant dashed to two bicycles. As a result of dash, all the four persons named above fell down from the bicycles and died on the spot, whereas one person by name Par Singh sustained injuries. ( 6. ) It is this incident which gave rise to filing of 4 claim petitions out of which these 4 appeals arise. The claim petitions were filed by respective legal representatives of three deceased persons claiming compensation for the death of their bread earner, whereas one was filed by injured seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him. ( 7. ) It is this incident which gave rise to filing of 4 claim petitions out of which these 4 appeals arise. The claim petitions were filed by respective legal representatives of three deceased persons claiming compensation for the death of their bread earner, whereas one was filed by injured seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him. ( 7. ) In all these claim petitions, the non applicants were common namely - driver, owner and Insurer of offending vehicle (Mini Truck No.GJ-20-T-3019) which dashed these 4 persons. The main defence of Insurance Company in all the 4 claim petitions was that driver of offending vehicle namely - respondent no.2 did not have licence to drive "Heavy Motor Vehicle" (HMV) and hence, no liability on the insurance company could be fastened arising out of use of Insured vehicle. It is this issue coupled with the issue of negligence of driver and income of persons who died in accident and nature of injuries sustained by one claimant were probed. Parties adduced evidence. By impugned award, the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company is liable to suffer the award for the claim filed by the claimants. It was held that driver of offending vehicle had licence to drive the vehicle in question. The Tribunal then determined the compensation and allowed the claim petition in part as indicated supra. It is against this award, the Insurance Company has filed appeal. ( 8. ) So two questions arise in these four appeals. Firstly, whether Tribunal was justified in holding that Insurance Company was liable to suffer the liability? In other words, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether Tribunal was justified in holding that driver of offending Truck was having valid licence to drive the vehicle in question ? In the second place, the question arises for consideration is; whether Tribunal was justified in awarding a sum of Rs.5,41,000/- to claimants for the death of Parma and if not, whether any case is made out for enhancement and if so, to what extent ? ( 9. ) Coming first to the question as to whether Tribunal was right in holding that Insurance Company is liable to suffer the liability because driver of offending vehicle was having the licence, in our considered view, the Tribunal was right on facts and evidence adduced by the parties. ( 10. ( 9. ) Coming first to the question as to whether Tribunal was right in holding that Insurance Company is liable to suffer the liability because driver of offending vehicle was having the licence, in our considered view, the Tribunal was right on facts and evidence adduced by the parties. ( 10. ) It is not in dispute that respondent no.2 was holding a licence to drive what is called "LMV " vehicles. It is also not in dispute that the. vehicle in question was LMV (Mini Truck). We are not inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel for the appellant (Insurance company) when he urged that the Truck in question was not LMV. but was Heavy Vehicle and hence, respondent No.2 (driver) was not authorized to drive HMV. This submission has no merit on facts. In the first place, there is no evidence to prove this fact. Secondly, Mini Truck squarely falls in the category of LMV and lastly, it is not a case of either "no licence", or "forged licence" but it is a case where driver was holding a licence and that too of LMV vehicles. This ending was recorded properly by the Tribunal after taking into consideration relevant documents such as, driving licence filed by parties, statement of officers of Road Transport Department examined in support of the fact of driving licence etc. We thus find no ground to reverse this finding though assailed with vehemence by learned counsel for the appellant (Insurance Company) to get over the liability and accordingly, uphold the same. In this connection, we place reliance on the decision reported in 2008 ACJ 721. It takes more or less same view on facts identical to the case. ( 11. ) Accordingly and in view of foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal of Insurance Company. As a consequence, the appeal fails and is dismissed. ( 12. ) This takes us to the cross objection filed by respondent of M.A. No.632 of 2006. In this cross objection, the claimants / respondents have prayed for enhancement in the compensation awarded to claimants. According to claimants, what is awarded to them is less. It should have been more. ( 13. ) It is a death case. One person by name "Parma" aged 26 years died. He was labourer working in FCI. The Tribunal held that his monthly income was Rs.3,800/-. According to claimants, what is awarded to them is less. It should have been more. ( 13. ) It is a death case. One person by name "Parma" aged 26 years died. He was labourer working in FCI. The Tribunal held that his monthly income was Rs.3,800/-. Deducting 1/3rd and applying the multiplier of 16, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.5,41,000/-inclusive of conventional compensation. ( 14. ) We have gone through the evidence adduced by claimants. Having gone through the same, we are of the view that the only area where we can interfere in the facts of this case is applicability of multiplier. Looking to the age of deceased (26 years), in our view, the multiplier of 18 appears to be more appropriate as compared to 16 applied by the Tribunal. So far as monthly income of deceased is concerned, the same does not call for any interference for want of adequate evidence. We thus uphold the same as it is. Similarly, we consider it just and proper to award in lump sum total sum of Rs.25,000/- towards conventional heads, such as funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, consortium, estate etc. ( 15. ) In this way, we get a sum of Rs.2,600/- for determination of dependency after deducting 1/3rd. So we get a sum of Rs.2,600/- x 12 = Rs. 31,200/-. Applying the multiplier of 18 to the said amount we get Rs.31,200/-x 18 = Rs.5,61,600/- and after adding Rs.25,000/- to the sum, the amount will come to Rs.5,61,600/- + Rs.25,000/- = Rs.5,86,600/-. ( 16. ) Inotherwords,the claim ant sare heldentitled fora totalsum of Rs. 5,86,600/-by way of compensation for the death of Parma. ( 17. ) The compensation awarded looking to the facts and cirumstances of the case and taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these types of cases in relation to several heads taken note of supra with reference to evidence broughton record by the parties. Indeed in such cases, no fixed and any static form ula as such is provided for determining the compensation and the same is required to be determined on the basis of totality of evidence adduced and the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration as mentioned supra. Indeed in such cases, no fixed and any static form ula as such is provided for determining the compensation and the same is required to be determined on the basis of totality of evidence adduced and the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration as mentioned supra. It is on this basis, the courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation to the claim ant for the injuries sustained. ( 18. ) Learned counsel for the respondent cited some authorities for claming 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. Indeed taking into consideration these authorities and then applying the law so laid down to the facts of this case,we have arrived at the figure of enhanced compensation mentioned supra. ( 19. ) In this view of them atter, the cross objection 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 realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge. Counsel fees Rs.500/-, if certified. ( 20. ) This takes us to M.A. No.631 of 2006. So far as this appeal is concerned, the same is also liable to be dismissed in the light of aforesaid discussion made in M.A. No.632 of 2006, because this appeal is also filed by Insurance Company questioning the same finding which is impugned m M.A. No.632 of 2006. ( 21. ) Accordingly and in view of foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal of Insurance Company. As a consequence, the appeal fails and is dismissed. ( 22. ) This takes us to cross objection of respondents / claimants filed in this appeal i.e. M.A. No.631 of 2006 seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. ( 23. ) It is a death case. One person by name "Tihiya" aged 27 years died. He was labourer working in FCI. The Tribunal held that his monthly income was Rs.4,000/-. Deducting 1/3rd and applying the multiplier of 16, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.5,50,400/-inclusive of conventional compensation. ( 24. ) We have gone through the evidence adduced by claimants. ) It is a death case. One person by name "Tihiya" aged 27 years died. He was labourer working in FCI. The Tribunal held that his monthly income was Rs.4,000/-. Deducting 1/3rd and applying the multiplier of 16, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.5,50,400/-inclusive of conventional compensation. ( 24. ) We have gone through the evidence adduced by claimants. Having gone through the same we are of the view that the only area where we can interfere in the facts of this case is applicability of multiplier. Locking to the age of deceased (27 years), in our view, the multiplier of 18 appears to be more appropriate as compared to 16 applied by the Tribunal. So far as monthly income of deceased is concerned, the same does not call for any interference for want of adequate evidence. We thus uphold the same as it is. Similarly, we consider it just and proper to award in lump sum total sum of Rs.25,000/- towards conventional heads, such as funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, consortium, estate etc. ( 25. ) In this way, we get a sum of Rs.2,700/-for determination of dependency after deducting l/3rd. So we get a sum of Rs.2,700/- x 12 = Rs. 32,400/-. Applying the multiplier of 18 to the said amount we get Rs.32,400/-x 18 = Rs.5,83,200/- and after adding Rs.25,000/- to the sum, the amount will come to Rs.5,83,200/- + Rs.25,000/- = Rs.6,08,200/-. ( 26. ) In other words, the claimants are held entitled for a total sum of Rs.6,08,200/- by way of compensation for the death of Tihiya. ( 27. ) The compensation award to the claimant 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 in relation to several heads taken note of supra with reference to evidence brought on record by the parties. Indeed in such cases, no fixed and any static formula as such is provided for determining the compensation and the same is required to be determined on the basis of totality of evidence adduced and the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration as mentioned supra. It is on this basis, the courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained. ( 28. It is on this basis, the courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained. ( 28. ) Learned counsel for the respondents / claimants 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. Indeed taking into consideration these authorities and then applying the law so laid down to the facts of this case, we have arrived at the figure of enhanced compensation mentioned supra. ( 29. ) In this view of the matter, the cross objection 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 realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge. Counsel fees Rs.500/-, if certified. ( 30. ) This takes us to M.A. No.669 of 2006. So far as this appeal is concerned, the same is also liable to be dismissed in the light of aforesaid discussion made in M.A. No.632 of 2006, because this appeal is also filed by Insurance Company questioning the same finding which is impugned in M.A. No.632 of 2006. ( 31. ) Accordingly and in view of foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal of Insurance Company. As a consequence, the appeal fails and is dismissed. ( 32. ) This takes us to cross objection of respondents / claimants filed in this appeal i.e. M.A. No. 669 of 2006 seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. ( 33. ) It is a death case. One person by name "Ter . Singh" aged 27 years died. He was labourer working in FCI. The Tribunal held that his monthly income was Rs.4,000/-. Deducting 1/3rd and applying the multiplier of 16, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.5,65,400/-inclusive of conventional compensation. ( 34. ) We have gone through the evidence adduced by claimants. Having gone through the same, we are of the view that the only area where we can interfere in the facts of this case is applicability of multiplier. Deducting 1/3rd and applying the multiplier of 16, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.5,65,400/-inclusive of conventional compensation. ( 34. ) We have gone through the evidence adduced by claimants. Having gone through the same, we are of the view that the only area where we can interfere in the facts of this case is applicability of multiplier. Looking to the age of deceased (27 years), in our view, the multiplier of 18 appears to be more appropriate as compared to 16 applied by the Tribunal. So far as monthly income of deceased is concerned, the same does not call for any interference for want of adequate evidence. We thus uphold the same as it is. Similarly, we consider it just and proper to award in lump sum total sum of Rs.25,000/- towards conventional heads, such as funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, consortium, estate etc. ( 35. ) In this way, we get a sum of Rs.2,700/- for determination of dependency after deducting 1/3rd. So we get a sum of Rs.2,700/- x 12 = Rs. 32,400/-. Applying the multiplier of 18 to the said amount we get Rs.32,400/-x 18 = Rs.5,83,200/- and after adding Rs.25,000/- to the sum, the amount will come to Rs.5,83,200/- + Rs.25,000/- = Rs.6,08,200/-. ( 36. ) In other words, the claimants are held entitled for a total sum of Rs.6,08.200/- by way of compensation for the death of Ter Singh. ( 37. ) The compensation awarded to the claimant 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 in relation to several heads taken note of supra with reference to evidence brought on record by the parties. Indeed in such cases, no fixed and any static formula as such is provided for determining the compensation and the same is required to be determined on the basis of totality of evidence adduced and the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration as mentioned supra. It is on this basis, the courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained. ( 38. ) Learned counsel for the respondent / claimant cited some authorities for claiming enhancement. We have gone through these authorities. It is on this basis, the courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained. ( 38. ) Learned counsel for the respondent / claimant 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. Indeed taking into consideration these authorities and then applying the law so laid down to the facts of this case, we have arrived at the figure of enhanced compensation mentioned supra. ( 39. ) In this view of the matter, the cross objection 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 realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge. Counsel fees Rs.500/-, if certified. ( 40. ) This takes us to M.A. No.692 of 2006. So for as this appeal is concerned, the same is also liable to be dismissed in the light of aforesaid discussion made in M. A. No.632 of 2006, because this appeal is also filed by Insurance Company questioning the same finding which is impugned in M.A. No.632 of 2006. ( 41. ) Accordingly and in view of foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal of Insurance Company. As a consequence, the appeal fails and is dismissed. ( 42. ) This takes us to the cross objection of respondents / claimants filed in this appeal i.e. M.A. No.692 of 2006 seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded by Tribunal to claimants. ( 43. ) It is a case of injury suffered by claimant - Par Singh, aged 28 years, a labourer by profession suffered injuries in his right hand. It was a fracture injury. According to claimant, he was hospitalized for undergoing operations and he actually underwent operations in hospital. According to doctor, the permanent disability is to the extent of 55%. It is according to claimant proved in evidence also. The Claims Tpibunal on appreciating the entire evidence adduced by the claimant awarded a total compensation of Rs.62,000/- towards the injuries sustained by him, expenses incurred, disability occurred and lastly pain and suffering. According to doctor, the permanent disability is to the extent of 55%. It is according to claimant proved in evidence also. The Claims Tpibunal on appreciating the entire evidence adduced by the claimant awarded a total compensation of Rs.62,000/- towards the injuries sustained by him, expenses incurred, disability occurred and lastly pain and suffering. It is this determination, which is impugned by the claimant, being on lower side hence, this cross objection for enhancement. ( 44. ) We have gone through the evidence adduced by the claimant on the issue of injury sustained by him. In our opinion, taking into consideration the nature of injury, the extent of damage caused in his body to the extent of 55%, partial disability occurred in the body of appellant (claimant) as a result of which he claims to be not as fit as he was prior to accident in his day today work, resulting in reducing his capacity to some extent to work, the expenditure incurred in receiving medical treatment in actual and to be incurred in future, the future loss and mental pain / suffering suffered due to his involvement in accident and disability occurred, we consider it proper to enhance in lump sum the compensation from Rs.62,000/- to Rs.75,000/-. In other words, in our view, the claimant is held entitled for a total sum of Rs.75,000/- by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by him. ( 45. ) The compensation awarded to the claimant 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 in relation to several heads taken note of supra with reference to evidence brought on record by the parties. Indeed in such cases, no fixed and any static formula as such is provided for determining the compensation and the same is required to be determined on the basis of totality of evidence adduced and the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration as mentioned supra. It is on this basis, the courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation to the claimant for the iniuries sustained. ( 46. ) Learned counsel for the respondent/claimant cited some authorities for claiming enhancement. We have gone through these authorities. It is on this basis, the courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation to the claimant for the iniuries sustained. ( 46. ) Learned counsel for the respondent/claimant 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. Indeed taking into consideration these authorities and then applying the law so laid down to the facts of this case, we have arrived at the figure of enhanced compensation mentioned supra. ( 47. ) In this view of the matter, the cross objection 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 realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge. Counsel fees Rs.500/-, if certified. Order accordingly.