JUDGMENT A.M. Sapre, J. 1. The decision rendered in this appeal shall govern the disposal of other appeal being M.A. No. 1241 of 2003, because, firstly, both these appeals arise out of one claim case and, secondly, seeks to challenge the same award. In fact both are in the nature of cross-appeals. 2. This is an appeal filed by claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 27.3.2003, passed by the Sixth Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 150 of 2002. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,55,000 to the claimants for the death of one Kishore Singh. The insurer of the offending vehicle has felt aggrieved of the impugned award and has filed the other connected appeal (M.A. No. 1241 of 2003) contending therein that Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon the insurance company. According to them, looking to the facts involved coupled with policy in question, no liability could have been fastened upon the insurance company. Likewise and as stated above, the claimants have filed the appeal (M.A. No. 1047 of 2003), i.e., present one against the same award contending therein that Tribunal erred in awarding less compensation to the claimants. According to claimants, it is contended in this appeal that it is on lower side and hence, it should be enhanced so as to make the same reasonable, just and proper. 3. So, two questions arise in these two appeals. Firstly, whether Tribunal was justified in holding that insurance company is liable to suffer the liability arising out of accident and secondly, whether Tribunal was justified in awarding a total sum of Rs. 2,55,000 to the claimants for the death of Kishore Singh and if not, whether any case is made out for enhancement? 4. Facts of the case are these: It is a death case. On 18.10.2001, Kishore Singh while driving his vehicle (Tempo Trax bearing No. MP 13-C 3245) dashed to another vehicle bearing No. MP 14-K 5441 and died. It is this incident, which gave rise to filing of claim petition by the legal representatives of Kishore Singh before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation for the death of Kishore Singh. The claim petition was filed against the insurer and insured of Tempo Trax of which Kishore Singh was the driver. It is this incident, which gave rise to filing of claim petition by the legal representatives of Kishore Singh before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation for the death of Kishore Singh. The claim petition was filed against the insurer and insured of Tempo Trax of which Kishore Singh was the driver. It was filed under Section 163-A ibid. It was contested by insurance company whereas owner and driver remained ex parte. The insurance company denied the claim. According to them, firstly, the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of owner of other vehicle and secondly, deceased had no driving licence. Parties adduced evidence. By the impugned award, the Tribunal held that non-applicants are liable to suffer the liability, that driver, i.e., the deceased had driving licence, that the insurance company was liable to suffer the award on the strength of the policy issued by them and lastly, deceased was earning Rs. 2,000 per month from his tailoring shop, Learned Claims Tribunal then applied the multiplier of 15 and accordingly, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,55,000 including compensation towards conventional heads. It is against this award, the aforementioned two appeals, i.e., one by insurance company and other by claimants are filed. 5. Heard Mr. Section Patwa, learned Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Karan Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, Mr. G.K. Neema, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. R.J. Pandit, learned Counsel for insurance company, respondent No. 3. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal filed by insurance company, i.e., M.A. No. 1241 of 2003, whereas allow the appeal in part filed by claimants, as indicated infra. 7. Coming first to the appeal of insurance company having perused the evidence and the policy, Exh. D1/D2, we are of the considered view that liability of driver Of vehicle in question was covered in cases of accident arising with the use of vehicle. It is clear When we notice that the insured (owner) had paid an additional premium to the insurance company to cover the liability of driver of vehicle. In the light of this fact which is clear from perusal of Exh. D1/D2, we are unable to hold that no liability could be fastened upon the insurer and insured of vehicle in question. In the light of this fact which is clear from perusal of Exh. D1/D2, we are unable to hold that no liability could be fastened upon the insurer and insured of vehicle in question. In other words, we are inclined to hold by upholding the impugned finding of Tribunal that the insurance company was liable to suffer the liability on the strength of policy in question, i.e., Exh. D1/D2 of the driver of vehicle. We, thus, do hot find any merit in the appeal of insurance company. It is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 8. Coming now to the appeal of the claimants, i.e., M.A. No. 1047 of 2003, having gone through entire evidence, we are of the view that one can safely take Rs. 3,000 to be the monthly income of the deceased from his tailoring business. It has come on record that deceased was a young man of 23 and was engaged in tailoring business. In the present day scenario, a person engaged in tailoring business can easily earn Rs. 100 per day. We, thus hold that deceased was earning Rs. 3,000 per month from his tailoring business. To this extent, we modify the finding of Tribunal. In this way, his yearly income comes to Rs. 3,000 x 12 = Rs. 36,000. 9. Deducting 1/3rd out of total yearly income spent towards personal expenses, we get a sum of Rs. 24,000. Applying the multiplier of 15 looking to his age, we get a sum of Rs. 24,000 x 15 = Rs. 3,60,000. To this, we add a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards conventional heads such as funeral expenses, loss of love and affection and consortium and accordingly, get a sum of Rs. 3,60,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 3,85,000. 10. In other words, the claimants are held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 3,85,000 by way of compensation for the death of Kishore Singh. 11. The compensation awarded to the claimants is 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. 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 the award of reasonable compensation. 12. The learned Counsel for the 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. 13. In this view of the matter, the appeal, i.e., M.A. No. 1047 of 2003 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 per cent per annum from the date of application till realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge. Counsel's fees Rs. 1,500 in M.A. No. 1047 of 2003, if certified.